On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 09:58:45AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> ty den 22.02.2005 Klokka 13:13 (+0100) skreiv Herbert Poetzl:
>
> > diff -NurpP --minimal
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01/arch/sparc64/solaris/fs.c
> >
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01-ro0.01/arch/sparc64/solaris/fs.c
> > ---
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01/arch/sparc64/solaris/fs.c
> > 2004-12-25 01:54:50 +0100
> > +++
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01-ro0.01/arch/sparc64/solaris/fs.c
> > 2005-02-19 06:32:05 +0100
> > @@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ static int report_statvfs(struct vfsmoun
> > int j = strlen (p);
> >
> > if (j > 15) j = 15;
> > - if (IS_RDONLY(inode)) i = 1;
> > + if (IS_RDONLY(inode) || (mnt && MNT_IS_RDONLY(mnt))) i = 1;
>
> Redundant check of mnt != NULL.
yep,
> > if (mnt->mnt_flags & MNT_NOSUID) i |= 2;
> > if (!sysv_valid_dev(inode->i_sb->s_dev))
> > return -EOVERFLOW;
> > @@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ static int report_statvfs64(struct vfsmo
> > int j = strlen (p);
> >
> > if (j > 15) j = 15;
> > - if (IS_RDONLY(inode)) i = 1;
> > + if (IS_RDONLY(inode) || (mnt && MNT_IS_RDONLY(mnt))) i = 1;
>
> Redundant check of mnt != NULL
agreed, thanks!
> > if (mnt->mnt_flags & MNT_NOSUID) i |= 2;
> > if (!sysv_valid_dev(inode->i_sb->s_dev))
> > return -EOVERFLOW;
> > diff -NurpP --minimal
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01/fs/namei.c
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01-ro0.01/fs/namei.c
> > --- linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01/fs/namei.c
> > 2005-02-19 06:31:50 +0100
> > +++
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01-ro0.01/fs/namei.c
> > 2005-02-19 06:32:05 +0100
> > @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ int permission(struct inode *inode, int
> > /*
> > * Nobody gets write access to a read-only fs.
> > */
> > - if (IS_RDONLY(inode) &&
> > + if ((IS_RDONLY(inode) || (nd && MNT_IS_RDONLY(nd->mnt))) &&
> > (S_ISREG(mode) || S_ISDIR(mode) || S_ISLNK(mode)))
> > return -EROFS;
>
> This is very dodgy. What if the user is calling permission without
> setting the (currently optional) nameidata hint? Have you audited the
> kernel to find out if this is safe?
safe yes, aybe not 'correct' I agree that moving
the check 'upwards' into the callers might be
the better solution here, will look into it ...
> > diff -NurpP --minimal
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01/fs/open.c
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01-ro0.01/fs/open.c
> > --- linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01/fs/open.c
> > 2005-02-19 06:31:43 +0100
> > +++
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01-ro0.01/fs/open.c
> > 2005-02-19 06:32:05 +0100
> > @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ static inline long do_sys_truncate(const
> > goto dput_and_out;
> >
> > error = -EROFS;
> > - if (IS_RDONLY(inode))
> > + if (IS_RDONLY(inode) || MNT_IS_RDONLY(nd.mnt))
> > goto dput_and_out;
> >
> > error = -EPERM;
> > @@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys_utime(char __user *
> > inode = nd.dentry->d_inode;
> >
> > error = -EROFS;
> > - if (IS_RDONLY(inode))
> > + if (IS_RDONLY(inode) || MNT_IS_RDONLY(nd.mnt))
> > goto dput_and_out;
> >
> > /* Don't worry, the checks are done in inode_change_ok() */
> > @@ -420,7 +420,7 @@ long do_utimes(char __user * filename, s
> > inode = nd.dentry->d_inode;
> >
> > error = -EROFS;
> > - if (IS_RDONLY(inode))
> > + if (IS_RDONLY(inode) || MNT_IS_RDONLY(nd.mnt))
> > goto dput_and_out;
> >
> > /* Don't worry, the checks are done in inode_change_ok() */
> > @@ -502,7 +502,8 @@ asmlinkage long sys_access(const char __
> > if (!res) {
> > res = permission(nd.dentry->d_inode, mode, &nd);
> > /* SuS v2 requires we report a read only fs too */
> > - if(!res && (mode & S_IWOTH) && IS_RDONLY(nd.dentry->d_inode)
> > + if(!res && (mode & S_IWOTH)
> > + && (IS_RDONLY(nd.dentry->d_inode) || MNT_IS_RDONLY(nd.mnt))
> > && !special_file(nd.dentry->d_inode->i_mode))
> > res = -EROFS;
> > path_release(&nd);
> > @@ -608,7 +609,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys_fchmod(unsigned int
> > inode = dentry->d_inode;
> >
> > err = -EROFS;
> > - if (IS_RDONLY(inode))
> > + if (IS_RDONLY(inode) || (file && MNT_IS_RDONLY(file->f_vfsmnt)))
> > goto out_putf;
>
> Redundant check of file != NULL.
ack!
> > err = -EPERM;
> > if (IS_IMMUTABLE(inode) || IS_APPEND(inode))
> > @@ -640,7 +641,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys_chmod(const char __u
> > inode = nd.dentry->d_inode;
> >
> > error = -EROFS;
> > - if (IS_RDONLY(inode))
> > + if (IS_RDONLY(inode) || MNT_IS_RDONLY(nd.mnt))
> > goto dput_and_out;
> >
> > error = -EPERM;
> > diff -NurpP --minimal
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c
> >
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01-ro0.01/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c
> > ---
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c
> > 2005-02-13 17:16:59 +0100
> > +++
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01-ro0.01/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c
> > 2005-02-19 06:32:05 +0100
> > @@ -40,7 +40,8 @@ int reiserfs_ioctl (struct inode * inode
> > i_attrs_to_sd_attrs( inode, ( __u16 * ) &flags );
> > return put_user(flags, (int __user *) arg);
> > case REISERFS_IOC_SETFLAGS: {
> > - if (IS_RDONLY(inode))
> > + if (IS_RDONLY(inode) ||
> > + (filp && MNT_IS_RDONLY(filp->f_vfsmnt)))
> > return -EROFS;
>
> Redundant check for filp != NULL
hum, don't see that one?
> > if ((current->fsuid != inode->i_uid) && !capable(CAP_FOWNER))
> > @@ -72,7 +73,8 @@ int reiserfs_ioctl (struct inode * inode
> > case REISERFS_IOC_SETVERSION:
> > if ((current->fsuid != inode->i_uid) && !capable(CAP_FOWNER))
> > return -EPERM;
> > - if (IS_RDONLY(inode))
> > + if (IS_RDONLY(inode) ||
> > + (filp && MNT_IS_RDONLY(filp->f_vfsmnt)))
> > return -EROFS;
>
> Redundant check for filp != NULL
same here ...
> > if (get_user(inode->i_generation, (int __user *) arg))
> > return -EFAULT;
> > diff -NurpP --minimal
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01/fs/reiserfs/xattr.c
> >
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01-ro0.01/fs/reiserfs/xattr.c
> > ---
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01/fs/reiserfs/xattr.c
> > 2005-02-13 17:16:59 +0100
> > +++
> > linux-2.6.11-rc4-bme0.06-bm0.01-at0.01-cc0.01-co0.01-xa0.01-ro0.01/fs/reiserfs/xattr.c
> > 2005-02-19 06:32:05 +0100
> > @@ -1355,7 +1355,7 @@ __reiserfs_permission (struct inode *ino
> > /*
> > * Nobody gets write access to a read-only fs.
> > */
> > - if (IS_RDONLY(inode) &&
> > + if ((IS_RDONLY(inode) || (nd && MNT_IS_RDONLY(nd->mnt))) &&
> > (S_ISREG(mode) || S_ISDIR(mode) || S_ISLNK(mode)))
> > return -EROFS;
>
> See comment above for fs/namei.c:permission().
see answer above ;)
thanks for your time,
Herbert
> Cheers,
> Trond
> --
> Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
