Re: [RFC v5 1/1] ns: add binfmt_misc to the user namespace
From: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date: 2018-10-10 00:11:41
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:45 PM Laurent Vivier [off-list ref] wrote:
Le 09/10/2018 à 18:15, Kirill Tkhai a écrit :quoted
On 09.10.2018 13:37, Laurent Vivier wrote:quoted
This patch allows to have a different binfmt_misc configuration for each new user namespace. By default, the binfmt_misc configuration is the one of the previous level, but if the binfmt_misc filesystem is mounted in the new namespace a new empty binfmt instance is created and used in this namespace. For instance, using "unshare" we can start a chroot of an another architecture and configure the binfmt_misc interpreter without being root to run the binaries in this chroot. Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <redacted> --- fs/binfmt_misc.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- include/linux/user_namespace.h | 13 ++++ kernel/user.c | 13 ++++ kernel/user_namespace.c | 3 + 4 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)diff --git a/fs/binfmt_misc.c b/fs/binfmt_misc.c index aa4a7a23ff99..1e0029d097d9 100644 --- a/fs/binfmt_misc.c +++ b/fs/binfmt_misc.c...quoted
quoted
@@ -80,18 +74,32 @@ static int entry_count; */ #define MAX_REGISTER_LENGTH 1920 +static struct binfmt_namespace *binfmt_ns(struct user_namespace *ns) +{ + struct binfmt_namespace *b_ns; + + while (ns) { + b_ns = READ_ONCE(ns->binfmt_ns); + if (b_ns) + return b_ns; + ns = ns->parent; + } + WARN_ON_ONCE(1); + return NULL; +} +...quoted
quoted
@@ -823,12 +847,34 @@ static const struct super_operations s_ops = { static int bm_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) { int err; + struct user_namespace *ns = sb->s_user_ns; static const struct tree_descr bm_files[] = { [2] = {"status", &bm_status_operations, S_IWUSR|S_IRUGO}, [3] = {"register", &bm_register_operations, S_IWUSR}, /* last one */ {""} }; + /* create a new binfmt namespace + * if we are not in the first user namespace + * but the binfmt namespace is the first one + */ + if (READ_ONCE(ns->binfmt_ns) == NULL) { + struct binfmt_namespace *new_ns; + + new_ns = kmalloc(sizeof(struct binfmt_namespace), + GFP_KERNEL); + if (new_ns == NULL) + return -ENOMEM; + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&new_ns->entries); + new_ns->enabled = 1; + rwlock_init(&new_ns->entries_lock); + new_ns->bm_mnt = NULL; + new_ns->entry_count = 0; + /* ensure new_ns is completely initialized before sharing it */ + smp_wmb();(I haven't dived into patch logic, here just small barrier remark from quick sight). smp_wmb() has no sense without paired smp_rmb() on the read side. Possible, you want something like below in read hunk: + b_ns = READ_ONCE(ns->binfmt_ns); + if (b_ns) { + smp_rmb(); + return b_ns; + }The write barrier is here to ensure the structure is fully written before we set the pointer. I don't understand how read barrier can change something at this level, IMHO the couple WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE() should be enough to ensure we have correctly initialized the pointer and the structure when we read the pointer back. I think the pointer itself is the "barrier" to access the memory modified before.
Things don't work that way on alpha, but that's why READ_ONCE()
includes an smp_read_barrier_depends():
#define __READ_ONCE(x, check) \
({ \
union { typeof(x) __val; char __c[1]; } __u; \
if (check) \
__read_once_size(&(x), __u.__c, sizeof(x)); \
else \
__read_once_size_nocheck(&(x), __u.__c, sizeof(x)); \
smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* Enforce dependency ordering from x */ \
__u.__val; \
})
#define READ_ONCE(x) __READ_ONCE(x, 1)