On 2023-07-28, Aleksa Sarai [off-list ref] wrote:

On 2023-07-26, Alexey Gladkov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 02:36:25AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:

quoted

On 2023-07-11, Alexey Gladkov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On the userspace side fchmodat(3) is implemented as a wrapper
function which implements the POSIX-specified interface. This
interface differs from the underlying kernel system call, which does not
have a flags argument. Most implementations require procfs [1][2].

There doesn't appear to be a good userspace workaround for this issue
but the implementation in the kernel is pretty straight-forward.

The new fchmodat2() syscall allows to pass the AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag,
unlike existing fchmodat.

[1] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/fchmodat.c;h=17eca54051ee28ba1ec3f9aed170a62630959143;hb=a492b1e5ef7ab50c6fdd4e4e9879ea5569ab0a6c#l35
[2] https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/stat/fchmodat.c?id=718f363bc2067b6487900eddc9180c84e7739f80#n28

Co-developed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Alexey Gladkov <legion@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
 fs/open.c                | 18 ++++++++++++++----
 include/linux/syscalls.h |  2 ++
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
index 0c55c8e7f837..39a7939f0d00 100644
--- a/fs/open.c
+++ b/fs/open.c

@@ -671,11 +671,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(fchmod, unsigned int, fd, umode_t, mode)
 	return err;
 }
 
-static int do_fchmodat(int dfd, const char __user *filename, umode_t mode)
+static int do_fchmodat(int dfd, const char __user *filename, umode_t mode, int lookup_flags)

I think it'd be much neater to do the conversion of AT_ flags here and
pass 0 as a flags argument for all of the wrappers (this is how most of
the other xyz(), fxyz(), fxyzat() syscall wrappers are done IIRC).

I just addressed the Al Viro's suggestion.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190717014802.GS17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk/ (local)

I think Al misspoke, because he also said "pass it 0 as an extra
argument", but you actually have to pass LOOKUP_FOLLOW from the
wrappers. If you look at how faccessat2 and faccessat are implemented,
it follows the behaviour I described.

quoted

quoted

quoted

 {
 	struct path path;
 	int error;
-	unsigned int lookup_flags = LOOKUP_FOLLOW;
+
 retry:
 	error = user_path_at(dfd, filename, lookup_flags, &path);
 	if (!error) {

@@ -689,15 +689,25 @@ static int do_fchmodat(int dfd, const char __user *filename, umode_t mode)
 	return error;
 }
 
+SYSCALL_DEFINE4(fchmodat2, int, dfd, const char __user *, filename,
+		umode_t, mode, int, flags)
+{
+	if (unlikely(flags & ~AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW))
+		return -EINVAL;

We almost certainly want to support AT_EMPTY_PATH at the same time.
Otherwise userspace will still need to go through /proc when trying to
chmod a file handle they have.

I'm not sure I understand. Can you explain what you mean?

You should add support for AT_EMPTY_PATH (LOOKUP_EMPTY) as well as
AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW. It would only require something like:

	unsigned int lookup_flags = LOOKUP_FOLLOW;

	if (flags & ~(AT_EMPTY_PATH | AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW))
		return -EINVAL;

	if (flags & AT_EMPTY_PATH)
		lookup_flags |= LOOKUP_EMPTY;
	if (flags & AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW)
		lookup_flags &= ~LOOKUP_FOLLOW;

	/* ... */

This would be effectively equivalent to fchmod(fd, mode). (I was wrong
when I said this wasn't already possible -- I forgot about fchmod(2).)

... with the exception (as Christian mentioned) of O_PATH descriptors.
However, there are two counter-points to this:

 * fchownat(AT_EMPTY_PATH) exists but fchown() doesn't work on O_PATH
   descriptors *by design* (according to open(2)).
 * chmod(/proc/self/fd/$n) works on O_PATH descriptors, meaning this
   behaviour is already allowed and all that AT_EMPTY_PATH would do is
   allow programs to avoid depending on procfs for this.

FWIW, I agree with Christian that these behaviours are not ideal (and
I'm working on a series that might allow for these things to be properly
blocked in the future) but there's also the consistency argument -- I
don't think fchownat() is much safer to allow in this way than
fchmodat() and (again) this behaviour is already possible through
procfs.

Ultimately, we can always add AT_EMPTY_PATH later. It just seemed like
an obvious omission to me that would be easy to resolve.

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>