On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In preparation for concurrent copy up, implement copy up
> of regular file as O_TMPFILE that is linked to upperdir
> instead of a file in workdir that is moved to upperdir.
>
Hi Vivek,
This commit is already in v4.11-rc1 and I haven't heard any complains.
But I wanted to ask all the same.
With this commit the semantics of security checks are modified a bit.
Before this change it was:
- Create temp file in workdir and negative dentry in upperdir with
security_inode_copy_up() creds
- Move temp file to upperdir with mounter creds
After this change it is:
- Create an O_TMPFILE and negative dentry in upperdir with
security_inode_copy_up() creds
- Link O_TMPFILE to upperdir with mounter creds
Is this equivalent as far as SELinux goes?
Does it mean that users may have to fix their sepolicy in some way?
Were you able to verify that there are no overlay+selinux regression
with v4.11-rc1? I just don't have selinux in my test setup...
Thanks,
Amir.
> Suggested-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c b/fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c
> index 01e3327..6e39e90 100644
> --- a/fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c
> +++ b/fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> #include <linux/fdtable.h>
> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
> #include "overlayfs.h"
> +#include "ovl_entry.h"
>
> #define OVL_COPY_UP_CHUNK_SIZE (1 << 20)
>
> @@ -233,7 +234,7 @@ int ovl_set_attr(struct dentry *upperdentry, struct kstat *stat)
> static int ovl_copy_up_locked(struct dentry *workdir, struct dentry *upperdir,
> struct dentry *dentry, struct path *lowerpath,
> struct kstat *stat, const char *link,
> - struct kstat *pstat)
> + struct kstat *pstat, bool tmpfile)
> {
> struct inode *wdir = workdir->d_inode;
> struct inode *udir = upperdir->d_inode;
> @@ -263,12 +264,17 @@ static int ovl_copy_up_locked(struct dentry *workdir, struct dentry *upperdir,
> if (new_creds)
> old_creds = override_creds(new_creds);
>
> - temp = ovl_lookup_temp(workdir, dentry);
> + if (tmpfile)
> + temp = ovl_do_tmpfile(upperdir, stat->mode);
> + else
> + temp = ovl_lookup_temp(workdir, dentry);
> err = PTR_ERR(temp);
> if (IS_ERR(temp))
> goto out1;
>
> - err = ovl_create_real(wdir, temp, &cattr, NULL, true);
> + err = 0;
> + if (!tmpfile)
> + err = ovl_create_real(wdir, temp, &cattr, NULL, true);
>
> if (new_creds) {
> revert_creds(old_creds);
> @@ -300,11 +306,14 @@ static int ovl_copy_up_locked(struct dentry *workdir, struct dentry *upperdir,
> if (err)
> goto out_cleanup;
>
> - err = ovl_do_rename(wdir, temp, udir, upper, 0);
> + if (tmpfile)
> + err = ovl_do_link(temp, udir, upper, true);
> + else
> + err = ovl_do_rename(wdir, temp, udir, upper, 0);
> if (err)
> goto out_cleanup;
>
> - newdentry = dget(temp);
> + newdentry = dget(tmpfile ? upper : temp);
> ovl_dentry_update(dentry, newdentry);
> ovl_inode_update(d_inode(dentry), d_inode(newdentry));
>
> @@ -318,7 +327,8 @@ static int ovl_copy_up_locked(struct dentry *workdir, struct dentry *upperdir,
> return err;
>
> out_cleanup:
> - ovl_cleanup(wdir, temp);
> + if (!tmpfile)
> + ovl_cleanup(wdir, temp);
> goto out2;
> }
>
> @@ -342,6 +352,9 @@ static int ovl_copy_up_one(struct dentry *parent, struct dentry *dentry,
> struct dentry *lowerdentry = lowerpath->dentry;
> struct dentry *upperdir;
> const char *link = NULL;
> + struct ovl_fs *ofs = dentry->d_sb->s_fs_info;
> + /* Should we copyup with O_TMPFILE or with workdir? */
> + bool tmpfile = S_ISREG(stat->mode) && ofs->tmpfile;
>
> if (WARN_ON(!workdir))
> return -EROFS;
> @@ -373,7 +386,7 @@ static int ovl_copy_up_one(struct dentry *parent, struct dentry *dentry,
> }
>
> err = ovl_copy_up_locked(workdir, upperdir, dentry, lowerpath,
> - stat, link, &pstat);
> + stat, link, &pstat, tmpfile);
> out_unlock:
> unlock_rename(workdir, upperdir);
> do_delayed_call(&done);
> --
> 2.7.4
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
