Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 06/20/2013 01:39 PM, Dwight Engen wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:27:04 -0400
>> Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 06/20/2013 09:54 AM, 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:
>>> Hi Dwight,
>>> If I understand correctly, the proposition is to turn
>>> XFS_EOF_FREE_EOFBLOCKS into administrator only functionality and run
>>> ns conversions on the inode uid/gid and associated eofb values for
>>> the ID filtering functionality.
>> Hi Brian, yeah that was the proposal :) I think there are really two
>> issues here. One is that the uid_t/gid_t may come from a userns so we
>> should be aware of that. Currently the ids passed in are used for
>> *filtering* so a malicious user can't do anything more than they
>> already can by not passing ids at all, but we should fix this so only
>> the intended files are affected. Second is that currently the ioctl
>> allows an unprivileged user to affect another user (as Eric pointed
>>> I am little dubious about XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS allowing any
>>> user to affect any other user. Your changes just seem to make
>>> it guaranteed that when called from a user namespace the wrong
>>> user will be affected.
>> I don't think the nsown_capability() I proposed is enough to take care
>> of this. Do you agree that if the caller is going to affect other
>> users, they should be CAP_SYS_ADMIN (or maybe CAP_FOWNER) in
> Yeah, that's what I was getting at below by restricting "global" scans
> to admin privilege.
>>> The latter sounds reasonable to me, though I'm not so sure about the
>>> CAP_SYS_ADMIN bit. For example, I think we'd expect a regular user to
>>> be able to run an eofblocks scan against files covered under his
>>> Perhaps the right thing to do here is to restrict global (and project
>>> quota?) scans to CAP_SYS_ADMIN and uid/gid based scans to processes
>>> with the appropriate permissions (i.e., CAP_SYS_ADMIN, matching
>>> uid/gid or CAP_FOWNER). Thoughts?
>> That sounds good to me. Maybe for a regular user the appropriate
>> permission check (at the top of xfs_inode_free_eofblocks()) could be
>> something like:
> I think the various capability/permission checks should be in the ioctl
> code. xfs_icache_free_eofblocks() and below are internal interfaces
> where these checks are probably not relevant. I actually have code lying
> around that creates an internal structure for that code, similar but
> separate from the xfs_eofblocks structure.
>> if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) &&
>> !uid_eq(VFS_I(ip)->i_uid, current_fsuid()) &&
>> return 0;
> This is a little confusing (and pardon me, I'm a bit new to the
> namespace work).
Depending I think if we had a per inode check I would just use
That said I think it makes sense to figure out what the permission
checks should be without taking the user namespace into account first.
Generalizing and relaxing them in safe ways from that point is not too
> What might be a bit more clear is to do the capability
> checks against the EOFBLOCKS command flags in xfs_file_ioctl() and
> return an appropriate error if permission is not granted for the
> requested type of scan (i.e., a regular user doing a global or non-id
> matching scan). Then restrict the changes in xfs_icache_free_eofblocks()
> to just dealing with the namespace conversions.
> This would still allow use cases such as the pending code I have that
> invokes an eofblocks scan on write() failure due to EDQUOT/ENOSPC in the
> case of project or user/group quotas. I suspect adding the namespace
> conversion stuff wouldn't break the typical user/group quota case, but
> we'd still require the ability to run a project quota scan from a
> particular user context. I think the combined check you have above would
> break that.
The general solution is to capture the credentials (struct cred) of the
write and perform the security checks against a passed in cred instead
I have a question about the project quota. Is it intended that any
user can set an project quota on any file? Unless I am misreading
xfs_ioctl_setattr that is what it allows.
My narrow focus concern on this is that if the user is in a user
namespace these ids need to be mapped before we look at them or else
we will do the wrong thing.