On Thu 22-12-22 15:47:21, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:

On 2022-12-16 17:43, Jan Kara wrote:

quoted

On Mon 12-12-22 09:06:10, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:

quoted

This patch adds a flag, FAN_INFO and an extensible buffer to provide
additional information about response decisions.  The buffer contains
one or more headers defining the information type and the length of the
following information.  The patch defines one additional information
type, FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_AUDIT_RULE, to audit a rule number.  This will
allow for the creation of other information types in the future if other
users of the API identify different needs.

Suggested-by: Steve Grubb <redacted>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/2745105.e9J7NaK4W3@x2 (local)
Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201001101219.GE17860@quack2.suse.cz (local)
Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <redacted>

Thanks for the patches. They look very good to me. Just two nits below. I
can do the small updates on commit if there would be no other changes. But
I'd like to get some review from audit guys for patch 3/3 before I commit
this.

I'd prefer to send a followup patch based on your recommendations rather
than have you modify it.  It does save some back and forth though...

OK, since there are updates to patch 3 as well, I agree this is a better
way forward.

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
index caa1211bac8c..cf3584351e00 100644
--- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
+++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c

@@ -283,19 +283,44 @@ static int create_fd(struct fsnotify_group *group, const struct path *path,
 	return client_fd;
 }
 
+static int process_access_response_info(int fd, const char __user *info, size_t info_len,
+					struct fanotify_response_info_audit_rule *friar)

I prefer to keep lines within 80 columns, unless there is really good
reason (like with strings) to have them longer.

Sure.  In this case, it buys us little since the last line is lined up
with the arguments openning bracket and it one long struct name unless I
unalign that argument and back up the indent by one.

Yeah, that's what I'd generally do.

quoted

BTW, why do you call the info structure 'friar'? I feel some language twist
escapes me ;)

Fanotify_Response_Info_Audit_Rule, it is a pronounceable word, and
besides they have a long reputation for making good beer.  :-D

Aha, ok :) Thanks for explanation.

quoted

quoted

+{
+	if (fd == FAN_NOFD)
+		return -ENOENT;

I would not test 'fd' in this function at all. After all it is not part of
the response info structure and you do check it in
process_access_response() anyway.

I wrestled with that.  I was even tempted to swallow the following fd
check too, but the flow would not have made as much sense for the
non-INFO case.

My understanding from Amir was that FAN_NOFD was only to be sent in in
conjuction with FAN_INFO to test if a newer kernel was present.

Yes, that is correct. But we not only want to check that FAN_INFO flag is
understood (as you do in your patch) but also whether a particular response
type is understood (which you don't verify for FAN_NOFD). Currently, there
is only one response type (FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_AUDIT_RULE) but if there are
more in the future we need old kernels to refuse new response types even
for FAN_NOFD case.

I presumed that if FAN_NOFD was present without FAN_INFO that was an
invalid input to an old kernel.

Yes, that is correct and I agree the conditions I've suggested below are
wrong in that regard and need a bit of tweaking. Thanks for catching it.

quoted

quoted

+
+	if (info_len != sizeof(*friar))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	if (copy_from_user(friar, info, sizeof(*friar)))
+		return -EFAULT;
+
+	if (friar->hdr.type != FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_AUDIT_RULE)
+		return -EINVAL;
+	if (friar->hdr.pad != 0)
+		return -EINVAL;
+	if (friar->hdr.len != sizeof(*friar))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	return info_len;
+}
+

...

quoted

@@ -327,10 +359,18 @@ static int process_access_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
-	if (fd < 0)
+	if ((response & FAN_AUDIT) && !FAN_GROUP_FLAG(group, FAN_ENABLE_AUDIT))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	if ((response & FAN_AUDIT) && !FAN_GROUP_FLAG(group, FAN_ENABLE_AUDIT))
+	if (response & FAN_INFO) {
+		ret = process_access_response_info(fd, info, info_len, &friar);
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return ret;
+	} else {
+		ret = 0;
+	}
+
+	if (fd < 0)
 		return -EINVAL;

And here I'd do:

	if (fd == FAN_NOFD)
		return 0;
	if (fd < 0)
		return -EINVAL;

As we talked in previous revisions we'd specialcase FAN_NOFD to just verify
extra info is understood by the kernel so that application writing fanotify
responses has a way to check which information it can provide to the
kernel.

The reason for including it in process_access_response_info() is to make
sure that it is included in the FAN_INFO case to detect this extension.
If it were included here

I see what you're getting at now. So the condition

 	if (fd == FAN_NOFD)
 		return 0;

needs to be moved into 

	if (response & FAN_INFO)

branch after process_access_response_info(). I still prefer to keep it
outside of the process_access_response_info() function itself as it looks
more logical to me. Does it address your concerns?

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara [off-list ref]
SUSE Labs, CR