Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] landlock: Handle weird files
From: Günther Noack <hidden>
Date: 2025-01-10 16:37:29
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 04:39:13PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
A corrupted filesystem (e.g. bcachefs) might return weird files. Instead of throwing a warning and allowing access to such file, treat them as regular files. Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Günther Noack <gnoack@google.com> Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> Reported-by: syzbot+34b68f850391452207df@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/000000000000a65b35061cffca61@google.com (local) Reported-by: syzbot+360866a59e3c80510a62@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/67379b3f.050a0220.85a0.0001.GAE@google.com (local) Reported-by: Ubisectech Sirius <redacted> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/c426821d-8380-46c4-a494-7008bbd7dd13.bugreport@ubisectech.com (local) Fixes: cb2c7d1a1776 ("landlock: Support filesystem access-control") Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> --- security/landlock/fs.c | 11 +++++------ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)diff --git a/security/landlock/fs.c b/security/landlock/fs.c index e31b97a9f175..7adb25150488 100644 --- a/security/landlock/fs.c +++ b/security/landlock/fs.c@@ -937,10 +937,6 @@ static access_mask_t get_mode_access(const umode_t mode) switch (mode & S_IFMT) { case S_IFLNK: return LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_SYM; - case 0: - /* A zero mode translates to S_IFREG. */ - case S_IFREG: - return LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_REG; case S_IFDIR: return LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_DIR; case S_IFCHR:@@ -951,9 +947,12 @@ static access_mask_t get_mode_access(const umode_t mode) return LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_FIFO; case S_IFSOCK: return LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_SOCK; + case S_IFREG: + case 0: + /* A zero mode translates to S_IFREG. */ default: - WARN_ON_ONCE(1); - return 0; + /* Treats weird files as regular files. */ + return LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_REG; } }-- 2.47.1
Reviewed-by: Günther Noack <redacted> Makes sense to me, since this is enforcing a stronger check than before and can only happen in the case of corruption. I do not have a good intuition about what happens afterwards when the file system is in such a state. I imagine that this will usually give an error shortly afterwards, as the opening of the file continues? Is that right? –Günther