On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:54:10AM -0400, Dwight Engen wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:13:41 +1000
> Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:09:48AM -0400, Dwight Engen wrote:
> > > Use uint32 from init_user_ns for xfs internal uid/gid
> > > representation in acl, xfs_icdinode. Conversion of kuid/gid is done
> > > at the vfs boundary, other user visible xfs specific interfaces
> > > (bulkstat, eofblocks filter) expect uint32 init_user_ns uid/gid
> > > values.
> > It's minimal, but I'm not sure it's complete. I'll comment on that
> > in response to Eric's comments...
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > > index 7f7be5f..8049976 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > > @@ -1268,8 +1268,8 @@ xfs_ialloc(
> > > ip->i_d.di_onlink = 0;
> > > ip->i_d.di_nlink = nlink;
> > > ASSERT(ip->i_d.di_nlink == nlink);
> > > - ip->i_d.di_uid = current_fsuid();
> > > - ip->i_d.di_gid = current_fsgid();
> > > + ip->i_d.di_uid = from_kuid(&init_user_ns, current_fsuid());
> > > + ip->i_d.di_gid = from_kgid(&init_user_ns, current_fsgid());
> > Why all new inodes be created in the init_user_ns? Shouldn't this be
> > current_user_ns()?
> current_fsuid() is the kuid_t from whatever userns current is in,
> which we are converting to a flat uint32 since i_d is the on disk inode.
So, init_user_ns is actually the target namespace of the conversion,
not the namespace we are converting *from*?
I *knew* this was going to happen when I first saw this code:
"For those of us that have to look at it once every few months,
following the same conventions as all the other code in the kernel
(i.e. kqid_to_id()) tells me everything I need to know without
having to go through the process of looking up the unusual
from_kqid() function and then from_kuid() to find out what it is
Here I am, several months later and trying to work out what the damn
conversion from_kgid() and make_kuid() are supposed to be doing and
trying to work out if it is correct or not...
> This field is then used in xfs_setup_inode() to populate
But that then uses make_kuid(&init_user_ns, ip->i_d.di_uid) which
according to the documentation creates a kuid in the init_user_ns,
not in the current user namespace.
So if we then do uid_eq(current_fsuid(), VFS_I(ip)->i_uid) on the
newly created and initialised inode they are different, yes? If they
are different, then this code is not correct....
> Most other filesystems would use inode_init_owner(),
> but xfs does not (I assume because it wants to handle SGID itself based
> on XFS_INHERIT_GID and irix_sgid_inherit).
No, XFS doesn't use inode_init_owner() because we are initialising
the on disk XFS inode here, not the VFS struct inode...
> > > @@ -1172,8 +1174,8 @@ xfs_setup_inode(
> > >
> > > inode->i_mode = ip->i_d.di_mode;
> > > set_nlink(inode, ip->i_d.di_nlink);
> > > - inode->i_uid = ip->i_d.di_uid;
> > > - inode->i_gid = ip->i_d.di_gid;
> > > + inode->i_uid = make_kuid(&init_user_ns,
> > > ip->i_d.di_uid);
> > > + inode->i_gid = make_kgid(&init_user_ns,
> > > ip->i_d.di_gid);
> > current name space?
> I believe that is what this is doing, but I think it will be more
> proper to do it the same as other filesystems:
> i_uid_write(inode, ip->i_d.di_uid);
> i_gid_write(inode, ip->i_d.di_gid);
Sure, but that's still creating the uids/gids in the init_user_ns,
so it doesn't solve my confusion about *why* this is being done.
There's no documentation as to how this stuff is supposed to work,
so I can't find out for myself. I'm not one for cargo-cult
copy-n-paste development - I like to understand why something is
done before copying it...
So, to prevent me from wondering what it is doing in another 6
months time, can you add a set of helper functions that are named:
and document why we are using the namespaces that are being used,
and then use them where we convert to/from the different inode
FWIW, what happens when ip->i_d.di_gid doesn't have a mapping in the
current namespace, and make_kuid/make_kgid return
INVALID_UID/INVALID_GID? Is this is going to happen, and if it does
what do we need to do about it? That will need to be added to the
At least if we get this done, XFS people will be able to tell at a
glance that the XFs code is doing the right thing w.r.t namespace