Re: [PATCH v2] Check for immutable flag in fallocate path

[Dave Chinner]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:42:27AM +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> All fs must check for the immutable flag in their fallocate callback.
> It's possible to have a race condition in this scenario: an application
> open a file in read/write and it does something, meanwhile root set the
> immutable flag on the file, the application at that point can call
> fallocate with success. Only Ocfs2 check for the immutable flag at the
> moment.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Patch is against 2.6.38-rc5
> 
> ChangeLog
> v2: Added the check for append-only file for XFS
> v1: First draft
> 
> --- linux-2.6.38-rc5-orig/fs/ext4/extents.c	2011-02-16 04:23:45.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.38-rc5/fs/ext4/extents.c	2011-02-21 08:43:37.000000000 +0100
> @@ -3670,6 +3670,12 @@ long ext4_fallocate(struct file *file, i
>  	 */
>  	credits = ext4_chunk_trans_blocks(inode, max_blocks);
>  	mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
> +
> +	if (IS_IMMUTABLE(inode)) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
> +		return -EPERM;
> +	}
> +
>  	ret = inode_newsize_ok(inode, (len + offset));
>  	if (ret) {
>  		mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
> --- linux-2.6.38-rc5-orig/fs/btrfs/file.c	2011-02-16 04:23:45.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.38-rc5/fs/btrfs/file.c	2011-02-21 08:55:58.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1289,6 +1289,12 @@ static long btrfs_fallocate(struct file
>  	btrfs_wait_ordered_range(inode, alloc_start, alloc_end - alloc_start);
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
> +
> +	if (IS_IMMUTABLE(inode)) {
> +		ret = -EPERM;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
>  	ret = inode_newsize_ok(inode, alloc_end);
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto out;
> --- linux-2.6.38-rc5-orig/fs/gfs2/file.c	2011-02-16 04:23:45.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.38-rc5/fs/gfs2/file.c	2011-02-21 09:09:17.000000000 +0100
> @@ -797,6 +797,11 @@ static long gfs2_fallocate(struct file *
>  	if (unlikely(error))
>  		goto out_uninit;
>  
> +	if (IS_IMMUTABLE(inode)) {
> +		error = -EPERM;
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (!gfs2_write_alloc_required(ip, offset, len))
>  		goto out_unlock;
>  
> --- ./linux-2.6.38-rc5/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c	2011-02-16 04:23:45.000000000 +0100
> +++ ./linux-2.6.38-rc5/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c	2011-03-03 09:25:32.000000000 +0100
> @@ -906,8 +906,18 @@ xfs_file_fallocate(
>  
>  	xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL);
>  
> -	if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)
> +	if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) {
>  		cmd = XFS_IOC_UNRESVSP;
> +		if (IS_APPEND(inode)) {
> +			error = -EPERM;
> +			goto out_unlock;
> +		}
> +	}

WTF?  Why does append mode have any effect on whether we can punch
holes in a file or not? There's no justification for adding this in
the commit message. Why is it even in a patch that is for checking
immutable inodes? What is the point of adding it, when all that will
happen is people will switch to XFS_IOC_UNRESVSP which has never had
this limitation?

And this asks bigger questions - why would you allow preallocate
anywhere but at or beyond EOF on an append mode inode? You can only
append to the file, so if you're going to add limitations based on
the append flag, you need to think this through a bit more....

> +
> +	if (IS_IMMUTABLE(inode)) {
> +		error = -EPERM;
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	}

Also, like Christoph said, these checks belong in the generic code,
not in every filesystem. The same checks have to be made for every
filesystem, so they should be done before calling out the
filesystems regardless of what functionality the filesystem actually
supports.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/