On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 16:30 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 14:51 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 11:41 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > In preparation for removing security_old_inode_init_security(), switch to
> > > security_inode_init_security().
> > >
> > > Extend the existing ocfs2_initxattrs() to take the
> > > ocfs2_security_xattr_info structure from fs_info, and populate the
> > > name/value/len triple with the first xattr provided by LSMs.
> > >
> > > As fs_info was not used before, ocfs2_initxattrs() can now handle the case
> > > of replicating the behavior of security_old_inode_init_security(), i.e.
> > > just obtaining the xattr, in addition to setting all xattrs provided by
> > > LSMs.
> > >
> > > Supporting multiple xattrs is not currently supported where
> > > security_old_inode_init_security() was called (mknod, symlink), as it
> > > requires non-trivial changes that can be done at a later time. Like for
> > > reiserfs, even if EVM is invoked, it will not provide an xattr (if it is
> > > not the first to set it, its xattr will be discarded; if it is the first,
> > > it does not have xattrs to calculate the HMAC on).
> > >
> > > Finally, modify the handling of the return value from
> > > ocfs2_init_security_get(). As security_inode_init_security() does not
> > > return -EOPNOTSUPP, remove this case and directly handle the error if the
> > > return value is not zero.
> > >
> > > However, the previous case of receiving -EOPNOTSUPP should be still
> > > taken into account, as security_inode_init_security() could return zero
> > > without setting xattrs and ocfs2 would consider it as if the xattr was set.
> > >
> > > Instead, if security_inode_init_security() returned zero, look at the xattr
> > > if it was set, and behave accordingly, i.e. set si->enable to zero to
> > > notify to the functions following ocfs2_init_security_get() that the xattr
> > > is not available (same as if security_old_inode_init_security() returned
> > > -EOPNOTSUPP).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > My previous review missed a couple of concerns.
> >
> > > ---
> > > fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 18 ++++++------------
> > > fs/ocfs2/xattr.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
> > > index 05f32989bad6..55fba81cd2d1 100644
> > > --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
> > > @@ -242,6 +242,7 @@ static int ocfs2_mknod(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns,
> > > int want_meta = 0;
> > > int xattr_credits = 0;
> > > struct ocfs2_security_xattr_info si = {
> > > + .name = NULL,
> > > .enable = 1,
> > > };
> > > int did_quota_inode = 0;
> > > @@ -315,12 +316,8 @@ static int ocfs2_mknod(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns,
> > > /* get security xattr */
> > > status = ocfs2_init_security_get(inode, dir, &dentry->d_name, &si);
> > > if (status) {
> > > - if (status == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > - si.enable = 0;
> > > - else {
> > > - mlog_errno(status);
> > > - goto leave;
> > > - }
> >
> > Although security_inode_init_security() does not return -EOPNOTSUPP,
> > ocfs2_init_security_get() could. Refer to commit 8154da3d2114 ("ocfs2:
> > Add incompatible flag for extended attribute"). It was added as a
> > temporary solution back in 2008, so it is highly unlikely that it is
> > still needed.
> >
> > > + mlog_errno(status);
> > > + goto leave;
> >
> > Without the -EOPNOTSUPP test, ocfs2_mknod() would not create the inode;
> > and similarly ocfs2_symlink(), below, would not create the symlink. It
> > would be safer not to remove the -EOPNOTSUPP test.
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* calculate meta data/clusters for setting security and acl xattr */
> > > @@ -1805,6 +1802,7 @@ static int ocfs2_symlink(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns,
> > > int want_clusters = 0;
> > > int xattr_credits = 0;
> > > struct ocfs2_security_xattr_info si = {
> > > + .name = NULL,
> > > .enable = 1,
> > > };
> > > int did_quota = 0, did_quota_inode = 0;
> > > @@ -1875,12 +1873,8 @@ static int ocfs2_symlink(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns,
> > > /* get security xattr */
> > > status = ocfs2_init_security_get(inode, dir, &dentry->d_name, &si);
> > > if (status) {
> > > - if (status == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > - si.enable = 0;
> > > - else {
> > > - mlog_errno(status);
> > > - goto bail;
> > > - }
> > > + mlog_errno(status);
> > > + goto bail;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* calculate meta data/clusters for setting security xattr */
> > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/xattr.c b/fs/ocfs2/xattr.c
> > > index 95d0611c5fc7..55699c573541 100644
> > > --- a/fs/ocfs2/xattr.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/xattr.c
> > > @@ -7259,9 +7259,21 @@ static int ocfs2_xattr_security_set(const struct xattr_handler *handler,
> > > static int ocfs2_initxattrs(struct inode *inode, const struct xattr *xattr_array,
> > > void *fs_info)
> > > {
> > > + struct ocfs2_security_xattr_info *si = fs_info;
> > > const struct xattr *xattr;
> > > int err = 0;
> > >
> > > + if (si) {
> > > + si->value = kmemdup(xattr_array->value, xattr_array->value_len,
> > > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!si->value)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > + si->name = xattr_array->name;
> > > + si->value_len = xattr_array->value_len;
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > for (xattr = xattr_array; xattr->name != NULL; xattr++) {
> > > err = ocfs2_xattr_set(inode, OCFS2_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY,
> > > xattr->name, xattr->value,
> > > @@ -7277,13 +7289,23 @@ int ocfs2_init_security_get(struct inode *inode,
> > > const struct qstr *qstr,
> > > struct ocfs2_security_xattr_info *si)
> > > {
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > /* check whether ocfs2 support feature xattr */
> > > if (!ocfs2_supports_xattr(OCFS2_SB(dir->i_sb)))
> > > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > - if (si)
> > > - return security_old_inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr,
> > > - &si->name, &si->value,
> > > - &si->value_len);
> > > + if (si) {
> > > + ret = security_inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr,
> > > + &ocfs2_initxattrs, si);
> >
> > The "if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode))" test exists in both
> > security_old_inode_init_security() and security_inode_init_security(),
> > but return different values. In the former case, it returns
> > -EOPNOTSUPP. In the latter case, it returns 0. The question is
> > whether or not we need to be concerned about private inodes on ocfs2.
> > If private inodes on ocfs2 are possible, then ocsf2_mknod() or
> > ocfs2_symlink() would fail to create the inode or symlink.
>
> Correction, previously when returning -EOPNOTSUPP for private inodes,
> xattrs would not be wrriten. By returning 0 without setting si->enable
> to 0, xattrs will be written.
Ok, but if there is a private inode, we would be setting si->enable to
zero. Should be ok, I guess.
Thanks
Roberto
> > > + /*
> > > + * security_inode_init_security() does not return -EOPNOTSUPP,
> > > + * we have to check the xattr ourselves.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!ret && !si->name)
> > > + si->enable = 0;
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > return security_inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr,
> > > &ocfs2_initxattrs, NULL);
