Linux-Fsdevel Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	virtio-fs-list <virtio-fs@redhat.com>,
	ganesh.mahalingam@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtiofs: Enable SB_NOSEC flag to improve small write performance
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:53:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegsUsZ1DLW6rzR4PQ=M2MxCY1r87eu2rP0Nac4Li_VEm7Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200721155503.GC551452@redhat.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6192 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 5:55 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 05:44:14PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 5:17 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:33:41PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 5:41 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:53:07AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I see in VFS that chown() always kills suid/sgid. While truncate() and
> > > > > write(), will suid/sgid only if caller does not have CAP_FSETID.
> > > > >
> > > > > How does this work with FUSE_HANDLE_KILLPRIV. IIUC, file server does not
> > > > > know if caller has CAP_FSETID or not. That means file server will be
> > > > > forced to kill suid/sgid on every write and truncate. And that will fail
> > > > > some of the tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > For WRITE requests now we do have the notion of setting
> > > > > FUSE_WRITE_KILL_PRIV flag to tell server explicitly to kill suid/sgid.
> > > > > Probably we could use that in cached write path as well to figure out
> > > > > whether to kill suid/sgid or not. But truncate() will still continue
> > > > > to be an issue.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, not doing the same for truncate seems to be an oversight.
> > > > Unfortunate, since we'll need another INIT flag to enable selective
> > > > clearing of suid/sgid on truncate.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even writeback_cache could be handled by this addition, since we call
> > > > > > fuse_update_attributes() before generic_file_write_iter() :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- a/fs/fuse/dir.c
> > > > > > +++ b/fs/fuse/dir.c
> > > > > > @@ -985,6 +985,7 @@ static int fuse_update_get_attr(struct inode
> > > > > > *inode, struct file *file,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         if (sync) {
> > > > > >                 forget_all_cached_acls(inode);
> > > > > > +               inode->i_flags &= ~S_NOSEC;
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, So I was clearing S_NOSEC only if server reports that file has
> > > > > suid/sgid bit set. This change will clear S_NOSEC whenever we fetch
> > > > > attrs from host and will force getxattr() when we call file_remove_privs()
> > > > > and will increase overhead for non cache writeback mode. We probably
> > > > > could keep both. For cache writeback mode, clear it undonditionally
> > > > > otherwise not.
> > > >
> > > > We clear S_NOSEC because the attribute timeout has expired.  This
> > > > means we need to refresh all metadata, including cached xattr (which
> > > > is what S_NOSEC effectively is).
> > > >
> > > > > What I don't understand is though that how this change will clear
> > > > > suid/sgid on host in cache=writeback mode. I see fuse_setattr()
> > > > > will not set ATTR_MODE and clear S_ISUID and S_ISGID if
> > > > > fc->handle_killpriv is set. So when server receives setattr request
> > > > > (if it does), then how will it know it is supposed to kill suid/sgid
> > > > > bit. (its not chown, truncate and its not write).
> > > >
> > > > Depends.  If the attribute timeout is infinity, then that means the
> > > > cache is always up to date.  In that case we only need to clear
> > > > suid/sgid if set in i_mode.  Similarly, the security.capability will
> > > > only be cleared if it was set in the first place (which would clear
> > > > S_NOSEC).
> > > >
> > > > If the timeout is finite, then that means we need to check if the
> > > > metadata changed after a timeout.  That's the purpose of the
> > > > fuse_update_attributes() call before generic_file_write_iter().
> > > >
> > > > Does that make it clear?
> > >
> > > I understood it partly but one thing is still bothering me. What
> > > happens when cache writeback is set as well as fc->handle_killpriv=1.
> > >
> > > When handle_killpriv is set, how suid/sgid will be cleared by
> > > server. Given cache=writeback, write probably got cached in
> > > guest and server probably will not not see a WRITE immideately.
> > > (I am assuming we are relying on a WRITE to clear setuid/setgid when
> > >  handle_killpriv is set). And that means server will not clear
> > >  setuid/setgid till inode is written back at some point of time
> > >  later.
> > >
> > > IOW, cache=writeback and fc->handle_killpriv don't seem to go
> > > together (atleast given the current code).
> >
> > fuse_cache_write_iter()
> >   -> fuse_update_attributes()   * this will refresh i_mode
> >   -> generic_file_write_iter()
> >       ->__generic_file_write_iter()
> >           ->file_remove_privs()    * this will check i_mode
> >               ->__remove_privs()
> >                   -> notify_change()
> >                      -> fuse_setattr()   * this will clear suid/sgit bits
>
> And fuse_setattr() has following.
>
>                 if (!fc->handle_killpriv) {
>                         /*
>                          * ia_mode calculation may have used stale i_mode.
>                          * Refresh and recalculate.
>                          */
>                         ret = fuse_do_getattr(inode, NULL, file);
>                         if (ret)
>                                 return ret;
>
>                         attr->ia_mode = inode->i_mode;
>                         if (inode->i_mode & S_ISUID) {
>                                 attr->ia_valid |= ATTR_MODE;
>                                 attr->ia_mode &= ~S_ISUID;
>                         }
>                         if ((inode->i_mode & (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP)) == (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP)) {
>                                 attr->ia_valid |= ATTR_MODE;
>                                 attr->ia_mode &= ~S_ISGID;
>                         }
>                 }
>         }
>         if (!attr->ia_valid)
>                 return 0;
>
> So if fc->handle_killpriv is set, we might not even send setattr
> request if attr->ia_valid turns out to be zero.

Ah, right you are.  The writeback_cache case is indeed special.

The way that can be properly solved, I think, is to check if any
security bits need to be removed before calling into
generic_file_write_iter() and if yes, fall back to unbuffered write.

Something like the attached?

Thanks,
Miklos

[-- Attachment #2: t.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 904 bytes --]

diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
index 83d917f7e542..f67c6f46dae9 100644
--- a/fs/fuse/file.c
+++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
@@ -1245,16 +1245,21 @@ static ssize_t fuse_cache_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
 	ssize_t written = 0;
 	ssize_t written_buffered = 0;
 	struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
+	struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn(inode);
 	ssize_t err;
 	loff_t endbyte = 0;
 
-	if (get_fuse_conn(inode)->writeback_cache) {
+	if (fc->writeback_cache) {
 		/* Update size (EOF optimization) and mode (SUID clearing) */
 		err = fuse_update_attributes(mapping->host, file);
 		if (err)
 			return err;
 
-		return generic_file_write_iter(iocb, from);
+		if (!fc->handle_killpriv ||
+		    !should_remove_suid(file->f_path.dentry))
+			return generic_file_write_iter(iocb, from);
+
+		/* Fall back to unbuffered write to remove SUID/SGID bits */
 	}
 
 	inode_lock(inode);

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-07-21 19:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-16 14:40 Vivek Goyal
2020-07-16 18:18 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-07-17  8:53   ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-20 15:41     ` Vivek Goyal
2020-07-21 12:33       ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-21 15:16         ` Vivek Goyal
2020-07-21 15:44           ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-21 15:55             ` Vivek Goyal
2020-07-21 18:16               ` Vivek Goyal
2020-07-21 19:53               ` Miklos Szeredi [this message]
2020-07-21 21:30                 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-07-22 10:00                   ` Miklos Szeredi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAJfpegsUsZ1DLW6rzR4PQ=M2MxCY1r87eu2rP0Nac4Li_VEm7Q@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=ganesh.mahalingam@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=virtio-fs@redhat.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] virtiofs: Enable SB_NOSEC flag to improve small write performance' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).