From: Tingmao Wang <m@maowtm.org>
To: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Cc: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, ast@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, jack@suse.cz,
kpsingh@kernel.org, mattbobrowski@google.com, amir73il@gmail.com,
repnop@google.com, jlayton@kernel.org, josef@toxicpanda.com,
gnoack@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/5] namei: Introduce new helper function path_walk_parent()
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 01:23:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fd995e37-9369-4375-8718-8338e732860f@maowtm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPhsuW75h3efyXmCcYE_UEmZGXR5KMSEw8h-_vrZH82BYU=WVw@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/11/25 00:08, Song Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:26 PM Tingmao Wang <m@maowtm.org> wrote:
> [..]
>>>
>>> if (!choose_mountpoint(real_mount(path->mnt), root, &p))
>>> return false;
>>> path_put(path);
>>> *path = p;
>>> ret = true;
>>> }
>>>
>>> if (unlikely(IS_ROOT(path->dentry)))
>>> return ret;
>>
>> Returning true here would be the wrong semantic right? This whole thing
>> is only possible when some mount shadows "/". Say if you have a landlock
>> rule on the old "/", but then we mount a new "/" and chroot into it (via
>> "/.."), the landlock rule on the old "/" should not apply, but if we
>> change *path and return true here then this will "expose" that old "/" to
>> landlock.
>
> Could you please provide more specific information about this case?
Apologies, it looks like I was mistaken in the above statement.
I was thinking of something like
# mount --mkdir -t tmpfs none tmproot
# cp busybox tmproot/ && chmod +x tmproot/busybox
# mount --move tmproot /
# env LL_FS_RW=/ LL_FS_RO=/.. ./sandboxer chroot /.. /busybox sh
# echo can write to root > /a
sh: can't create /a: Permission denied
^^^^ this does not work, but I was mistakenly thinking it would
I think because choose_mountpoint_rcu only returns true if
if (mountpoint != m->mnt.mnt_root)
passes, this situation won't cause ret to be true in your code.
But then I can't think of when
if (unlikely(IS_ROOT(path->dentry)))
return ret;
would ever return true, unless somehow d_parent is corrupted? Maybe I'm
just missing something obvious here.
Anyway, since there's a suggestion from Neil to refactor this, this might
not be too important, so feel free to ignore for now.
>
> Thanks,
> Song
>
>> A quick suggestion although I haven't tested anything - maybe we should do
>> a special case check for IS_ROOT inside the
>> if (unlikely(path->dentry == path->mnt->mnt_root))
>> ? Before "path_put(path);", if IS_ROOT(p.dentry) then we just path_get(p)
>> and return false.
>>
>>>
>>> parent = dget_parent(path->dentry);
>>> dput(path->dentry);
>>> path->dentry = parent;
>>> return true;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Song
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-11 0:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-06 21:30 [PATCH v3 bpf-next 0/5] bpf path iterator Song Liu
2025-06-06 21:30 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/5] namei: Introduce new helper function path_walk_parent() Song Liu
2025-06-10 17:18 ` Mickaël Salaün
2025-06-10 17:26 ` Song Liu
2025-06-10 22:26 ` Tingmao Wang
2025-06-10 22:34 ` Tingmao Wang
2025-06-10 23:08 ` Song Liu
2025-06-11 0:23 ` Tingmao Wang [this message]
2025-06-10 23:34 ` NeilBrown
2025-06-11 0:56 ` Song Liu
2025-06-11 15:42 ` Mickaël Salaün
2025-06-11 16:31 ` Song Liu
2025-06-11 17:50 ` Tingmao Wang
2025-06-11 18:08 ` Song Liu
2025-06-12 9:01 ` Jan Kara
2025-06-12 9:49 ` Jan Kara
2025-06-12 12:31 ` Christian Brauner
2025-06-16 0:24 ` Ref-less parent walk from Landlock (was: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/5] namei: Introduce new helper function path_walk_parent()) Tingmao Wang
2025-06-17 6:20 ` Song Liu
2025-06-06 21:30 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 2/5] landlock: Use path_walk_parent() Song Liu
2025-06-08 18:45 ` Tingmao Wang
2025-06-06 21:30 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 3/5] bpf: Introduce path iterator Song Liu
2025-06-06 21:30 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 4/5] selftests/bpf: Add tests for bpf " Song Liu
2025-06-06 21:30 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: Path walk test Song Liu
2025-06-08 17:32 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 0/5] bpf path iterator Tingmao Wang
2025-06-09 6:23 ` Song Liu
2025-06-09 8:08 ` Tingmao Wang
2025-06-11 11:36 ` Christian Brauner
2025-06-11 15:39 ` Mickaël Salaün
2025-06-08 17:32 ` Tingmao Wang
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=fd995e37-9369-4375-8718-8338e732860f@maowtm.org \
--to=m@maowtm.org \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=gnoack@google.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mattbobrowski@google.com \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=repnop@google.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®