Hi,

Le jeudi 25 septembre 2014 à 22:57 +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt a écrit :

On 24.09.2014 15:11, Yann Droneaud wrote:

quoted

According to commit 80af258867648 ('fanotify: groups can specify
their f_flags for new fd'), file descriptors created as part of
file access notification events inherit flags from the
event_f_flags argument passed to syscall fanotify_init(2).

So while it is legal for userspace to call fanotify_init() with
O_CLOEXEC as part of its second argument, O_CLOEXEC is currently
silently ignored.

Indeed event_f_flags are only given to dentry_open(), which only
seems to care about O_ACCMODE and O_PATH in do_dentry_open(),
O_DIRECT in open_check_o_direct() and O_LARGEFILE in
generic_file_open().

I tested on kernel 3.17.0-rc5. I passed O_CLOEXEC in event_f_flags.
When I called fcnt(event_metadata->fd, F_GETFD) it did not return 
FD_CLOEXEC. So I can confirm your observation that O_CLOEXEC is not 
working as expected.

I found this definition
#define get_unused_fd() get_unused_fd_flags(0)

So essentially when get_unused_fd() is called for a fanotify event 
O_CLOEXEC is ignored.

This is what your patch fixes.

quoted

More, there's no effective check on event_f_flags value that
would catch unknown / unsupported values, unlike the one on
f_flags argument of the syscall (see FAN_ALL_INIT_FLAGS in
include/uapi/linux/fanotify.h).

The fanotify_init(2) man page describes which flags are allowable in 
event_f_flags.

Could you, please, explain why the following code in fanotify_user.c is 
not to be considered an effective check:

     if (event_f_flags & ~FANOTIFY_INIT_ALL_EVENT_F_BITS)
         return -EINVAL;

     switch (event_f_flags & O_ACCMODE) {
     case O_RDONLY:
     case O_RDWR:
     case O_WRONLY:
         break;
     default:
         return -EINVAL;
     }

I CC Jan Kara as he reviewed the code.

I missed the opportunity to update my commit message.

I've sent my initial version of the patch (with the same wording) on
5th, January, 2014:

http://mid.gmane.org/3d9591f81e62a78a726721c8052b3910870db35e.1388952061.git.ydroneaud@opteya.com
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/3d9591f81e62a78a726721c8052b3910870db35e.1388952061.git.ydroneaud@opteya.com

The patch was sent again on March, 11:

http://lkml.kernel.org/r/baab31b572b216d13f2149bdf07e0f79a1bae660.1394532336.git.ydroneaud@opteya.com
http://mid.gmane.org/baab31b572b216d13f2149bdf07e0f79a1bae660.1394532336.git.ydroneaud@opteya.com

And another time, on June, 1st:

http://lkml.kernel.org/r/2c6ab28980f0007ea3b9afa7ecd7497806a6a451.1401630396.git.ydroneaud@opteya.com
http://mid.gmane.org/2c6ab28980f0007ea3b9afa7ecd7497806a6a451.1401630396.git.ydroneaud@opteya.com

So as you can see, my patch predate yours:

http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=48149e9d3a7e924010a0daab30a6197b7d7b6580

But I have to apologize: I haven't noticed your patch was merged between
my previous submission and the current one. My bad.

I will update the commit message to remove my obsolete comment on the
input parameter check.

Thanks again for review and testing.

Regards.

-- 
Yann Droneaud
OPTEYA