Thread (22 messages) 22 messages, 6 authors, 2017-05-18

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.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help