"Serge E. Hallyn" <se...@hallyn.com> writes:
> Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebied...@xmission.com):
>> ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>>
>> > "Serge E. Hallyn" <se...@hallyn.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebied...@xmission.com):
>> >>>
>> >>> "Serge E. Hallyn" <se...@hallyn.com> writes:
>> >>>
>> >>> > diff --git a/fs/xattr.c b/fs/xattr.c
>> >>> > index 7e3317c..75cc65a 100644
>> >>> > --- a/fs/xattr.c
>> >>> > +++ b/fs/xattr.c
>> >>> > @@ -170,12 +170,29 @@ int __vfs_setxattr_noperm(struct dentry *dentry,
>> >>> > const char *name,
>> >>> > const void *value, size_t size, int flags)
>> >>> > {
>> >>> > struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
>> >>> > - int error = -EAGAIN;
>> >>> > + int error;
>> >>> > + void *wvalue = NULL;
>> >>> > + size_t wsize = 0;
>> >>> > int issec = !strncmp(name, XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX,
>> >>> > XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX_LEN);
>> >>> >
>> >>> > - if (issec)
>> >>> > + if (issec) {
>> >>> > inode->i_flags &= ~S_NOSEC;
>> >>> > +
>> >>> > + if (!strcmp(name, "security.capability")) {
>> >>> > + error = cap_setxattr_convert_nscap(dentry,
>> >>> > value, size,
>> >>> > + &wvalue, &wsize);
>> >>> > + if (error < 0)
>> >>> > + return error;
>> >>> > + if (wvalue) {
>> >>> > + value = wvalue;
>> >>> > + size = wsize;
>> >>> > + }
>> >>> > + }
>> >>> > + }
>> >>> > +
>> >>> > + error = -EAGAIN;
>> >>> > +
>> >>>
>> >>> Why is the conversion in __vfs_setxattr_noperm and not in setattr as
>> >>> was done for posix_acl_fix_xattr_from_user?
>> >>
>> >> I think I was thinking I wanted to catch all the vfs_setxattr operations,
>> >> but I don't think that's right. Moving to setxattr seems right. I'll
>> >> look around a bit more.
>> >
>> > Thanks. This is one of these little details that we want a good answer
>> > to why there. If you can document that in your patch description when
>> > you resend I would appreciate it.
>>
>> Ok. Grrr.
>>
>> Looking at this a little more getting it correct where we call the
>> conversion operation is critical.
>>
>> I believe the current placement of cap_setxattr_convert_nscap is
>> actively wrong. In particular unless I am misleading something this
>> will trigger multiple conversions when setting one of these attributes
>> on overlayfs.
>>
>> The stragey I adopted for for posix acls is:
>>
>> On a write from userspace convert from current_user_ns() to &init_user_ns.
>> On a write to the filesystem convert from &init_user_ns to fs_user_ns.
>>
>> On a read from the filesystem convert from fs_user_ns to &init_user_ns
>> On a read from the kernel to userspace convert from &init_user_ns
>> to current_user_ns().
>>
>> Overall a good strategy but no one we can trivially adopt for the
>> capability xattr as the second write to filesystem method does not
>> appear to actually exist for anything except for posix acls.
>>
>> I need to think a little more about how we want to accomplish this for
>> the capability xattr. My apoligies for leading you down a path that has
>> all of these bumps and then being sufficiently distracted not to help
>> you through this maze.
>>
>> The only easy solution I can see is to just always keep things in
>> &init_user_ns inside the kernel. That works until we bring fuse or
>> other unprivileged mounts onboard that have storage outside of the
>> kernel.
>>
>> Seth and I will have to rework that for fuse support but that sounds
>> better than not letting such an issue prevent us from merging the code.
>
> Ok, in the meantime I've made a few updates in my tree which I think
> make the code a lot nicer (and do move the conversion to setxattr()),
> but there's a bug in that which I'm still trying to nail down. I'll
> send a new version when I get that figured, and we can see how close
> to ok that is.
>
> Note that upstream cap_inode_removexattr and cap_inode_setxattr()
> upstream still don't respect the fs_user_ns properly either (the
> proper code is in the Ubuntu kernel, maybe it's in your -next
> tree, I don't know how you and Seth are coordinating that)
Oh yes. The relaxation of permissions. I remember holding off
on that until we knew the core vfs work was done. At this point I don't
think it is necessary to keep holding off. It seemed prudent before we
got all of the s_user_ns bits used in all of the proper places.
At this point I think it was just worry about the last little vfs bits
has been challenging enough that we just haven't gotten too it.
Eric
