Re: [PATCH] fs: fix i_writecount on shmem and friends
From: David Herrmann <hidden>
Date: 2014-03-20 11:13:46
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
Hi On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Al Viro [off-list ref] wrote:
We do, but how do you get anything even attempt deny_write_access() on those? And what would the semantics of that be, anyway?
I just discovered /proc/self/map_files/ (only enabled with CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE). Attached is an example to trigger an i_writecount underrun on an anon-mapping with your recommended fix applied. You can also find it at [1]. This example is a bit more complex, but basically does this: - get a fresh, executable zero-mapping - write an executable into the mapping - get a read-only file-descriptor to the underlying shmem file via /proc/self/map_files/ - execute that mapping via /proc/self/map_files/ - try to get a writable FD via /proc/self/map_files, this will fail with ETXTBUSY _even though_ we still own a writable mapping Ok, maybe this example is stupid, uses non-standard functionality (CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE) and is a very unlikely use-case, but it shows that there _are_ ways to trigger this underrun. The hard part is to get access to an executable file-descriptor that was created via alloc_file() rather than open(). Once you got this, you can always trigger the underrun by executing the file while you still have a _single_ writable mapping which wasn't accounted for in i_writecount. /proc/self/map_files/ is root only, so this is not a security problem. I'm fine if you argue /proc/self/map_files/ is insecure and shouldn't be used. Or maybe it must be non-executable. I'm just saying there might always be new interfaces that give you a file-descriptor to files allocated with alloc_file() rather than open(). And once you got this FD, you can always execve() it via /proc and get deny_write_access() this way. By initializing i_writecount on all files, we make sure this never happens. Anyhow, as I really want this fixed either way, please let me know how to proceed. I can polish your patch and resend it if you don't intend to apply it yourself. Thanks david [1] https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dvdhrm/9661331/raw/b751cc7859267bb62af393ba3817b92c5225a372/gistfile1.txt