On Dienstag, 14. Juni 2022 14:45:38 CEST Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 02:10:01PM +0200:
> > It definitely goes into the right direction, but I think it's going a bit
> > too far by using writeback_fid also in cases where it is not necessary
> > and wasn't used before in the past.
>
> Would help if I had an idea of what was used where in the past.. :)
>
> From a quick look at the code, checking out v5.10,
> v9fs_vfs_writepage_locked() used the writeback fid always for all writes
> v9fs_vfs_readpages is a bit more complex but only seems to be using the
> "direct" private_data fid for reads...
> It took me a bit of time but I think the reads you were seeing on
> writeback fid come from v9fs_write_begin that does some readpage on the
> writeback fid to populate the page before a non-filling write happens.
Yes, the overall picture in the past was not clear to me either.
To be more specific, I was reading your patch as if it would e.g. also use the
writeback_fid if somebody explicitly called read() (i.e. not an implied read
caused by a partial write back), and was concerned about a potential privilege
escalation. Maybe it's just a theoretical issue, as this case is probably
already catched on a higher, general fs handling level, but worth
consideration.
> > What about something like this in v9fs_init_request() (yet untested):
> > /* writeback_fid is always opened O_RDWR (instead of just O_WRONLY)
> >
> > * explicitly for this case: partial write backs that require a read
> > * prior to actual write and therefore requires a fid with read
> > * capability.
> > */
> >
> > if (rreq->origin == NETFS_READ_FOR_WRITE)
> >
> > fid = v9inode->writeback_fid;
>
> ... Which seems to be exactly what this origin is about, so if that
> works I'm all for it.
>
> > If desired, this could be further constrained later on like:
> > if (rreq->origin == NETFS_READ_FOR_WRITE &&
> >
> > (fid->mode & O_ACCMODE) == O_WRONLY)
> >
> > {
> >
> > fid = v9inode->writeback_fid;
> >
> > }
>
> That also makes sense, if the fid mode has read permissions we might as
> well use these as the writeback fid would needlessly be doing root IOs.
>
> > I will definitely give these options some test spins here, a short
> > feedback
> > ahead would be appreciated though.
>
> Please let me know how that works out, I'd be happy to use either of
> your versions instead of mine.
> If I can be greedy though I'd like to post it together with the other
> couple of fixes next week, so having something before the end of the
> week would be great -- I think even my first overkill version early and
> building on it would make sense at this point.
>
> But I think you've got the right end, so hopefully won't be needing to
> delay
I need a day or two for testing, then I will report back for sure. So it
should perfectly fit into your intended schedule.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Christian Schoenebeck
