Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS
flat view
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date: 2017-05-05 00:44:19
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Al Viro [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 07:36:52PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:quoted
Oh, nice! It looks like this is somewhat similar to the old O_BENEATH proposal, but because the intentions behind the proposals are different (application sandboxing versus permitting an application to restrict its own filesystem accesses), the semantics differ: AT_NO_JUMPS doesn't prevent starting the path with "/", but does prevent mountpoint traversal. Is that correct?It prevents both, actually - I missed that in description, but this if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS)) return -ELOOP; in nd_jump_root() affects absolute pathnames same way as it affects absolute symlinks. It's not quite O_BENEATH, and IMO it's saner that way - a/b/c/../d is bloody well allowed, and so are relative symlinks that do not lead out of the subtree. If somebody has a good argument in favour of flat-out ban on .. (_other_ than "other guys do it that way, and it doesn't need to make sense 'cuz security!!1!!!", please), I'd be glad to hear it.
I don't have an argument for allowing '..'. I think it would be okay to disallow it, but I don't think it matters all that much either way.
As for mountpoint crossing... it might make sense to split those.
O_BENEATH allowed it, and if we want AT_BENEATH to match that - let's
do it. Then this one would become AT_BENEATH | AT_XDEV (the latter named
after find(1) option, obviously).
So how about this:
AT_BENEATH:
* no absolute pathnames
* no absolute symlinks
* no procfs-style symlinks
* no traversal of .. when we are at the same place where we'd started
(dir/../file is allowed, dir/../.. isn't)
AT_XDEV:
* no mountpoint crossing allowed
For the latter I would prefer -EXDEV, for obvious reasons. For the former...
not sure. I'm not too happy about -ELOOP, but -EPERM (as with O_BENEATH)
is an atrocity - it's even more overloaded.
Suggestions?-EDOTDOT would be amusing.