Re: [PATCH v8 01/19] securityfs: Extend securityfs with namespacing support
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Date: 2022-01-11 12:17:08
Also in:
linux-integrity, lkml
On Wed, 2022-01-05 at 11:18 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 03:58:11AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:quoted
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 12:03:58PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:quoted
From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
quoted
quoted
Drop the additional dentry reference to enable simple cleanup of dentries upon umount. Now the dentries do not need to be explicitly freed anymore but we can just rely on d_genocide() and the dcache shrinker to do all the required work.The "additional dentry reference" mentioned only relates to an afaict unnecessary dget() in securityfs_create_dentry() which I pointed out as part of earlier reviews. But the phrasing implies that there's a behavioral change for the initial securityfs instance based on the removal of this additional dget() when there really isn't. After securityfs_create_dentry() has created a new dentry via lookup_one_len() and eventually called d_instantiate() it currently takes an additional reference on the newly created dentry via dget(). This additional reference is then paired with an additional dput() in securityfs_remove(). I have not yet seen a reason why this is necessary maybe you can help there. For example, contrast this with debugfs which has the same underlying logic as securityfs, i.e. any created dentry pins the whole filesystem via simple_pin_fs() until the dentry is released and simple_unpin_fs() is called. It uses a similar pairing as securityfs: where securityfs has the securityfs_create_dentry() and securityfs_remove() pairing, debugfs has the __debugfs_create_file() and debugfs_remove() pairing. But debugfs doesn't take an additional reference on the just created dentry in __debugfs_create_file() which would need to be put in debugfs_remove(). So if we contrast the creation routines of securityfs and debugfs directly condensed to just the dentry references: securityfs | debugfs ---------------- | ------------------ | lookup_one_len() | lookup_one_len() d_instantiate() | d_instantiate() dget() | And I have not understood why securityfs would need that additional dget(). Not just intrinsically but also when contrasted with debugfs. So that additional dget() is removed as part of this patch.
Assuming it isn't needed, could removing it be a separate patch and upstreamed independently of either the securityfs or IMA namespacing changes? thanks, Mimi
But the explanation in the commit message isn't ideal as it implies the removal of the additional dget() would have any impact on the pinning logic for securityfs when it does not. But the pinning logic doesn't make sense outside of the initial namespace which can never go away and there are security modules that have files or settings for the whole system that never go away and will always keep the filesystem around. But for unprivileged/userns containers that mount their own securityfs instance we want the securityfs instance cleaned up when it is unmounted. There is no need to duplicate the pinning logic or make the global securityfs instance display different information based on the userns. Both options would be really messy and hacky. Instead we can simply give each userns it's own securityfs instance similar to how each ipc ns has its own mqueue instance and all entries in there are cleaned up on umount or when the whole container is shutdown. After the container is shutdown all of the security module settings for the container go away with it anyway. So for that we don't want any filesystem pinning done in securityfs_create_dentry(). And we also really don't want the additional dget() that is currently taken in securityfs_create_dentry() as it would pointlessly require us to dput() during superblock shutdown afaict. None of this however should cause any behavioral changes for the initial securityfs instance.