Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] fs: add O_ALLOW_ENCODED open flag

[Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:28:39PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 8/21/20 3:38 AM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>
> > 
> > The upcoming RWF_ENCODED operation introduces some security concerns:
> > 
> > 1. Compressed writes will pass arbitrary data to decompression
> >     algorithms in the kernel.
> > 2. Compressed reads can leak truncated/hole punched data.
> > 
> > Therefore, we need to require privilege for RWF_ENCODED. It's not
> > possible to do the permissions checks at the time of the read or write
> > because, e.g., io_uring submits IO from a worker thread. So, add an open
> > flag which requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN. It can also be set and cleared with
> > fcntl(). The flag is not cleared in any way on fork or exec; it should
> > probably be used with O_CLOEXEC in most cases.
> > 
> > Note that the usual issue that unknown open flags are ignored doesn't
> > really matter for O_ALLOW_ENCODED; if the kernel doesn't support
> > O_ALLOW_ENCODED, then it doesn't support RWF_ENCODED, either.
> 
> It seemed like you agreed to require O_CLOEXEC to be set when using
> O_ALLOW_ENCODED in your last go around, what happened to that?  I know I'd
> feel better if we had that requirement, and if we aren't I'd like to know
> why we can't.  Thanks,
> 
> Josef

Yup I was still on the fence about it since it's a bit of an awkward
requirement, but I'm convinced now that we might as well be safe and
require it.