Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS

[Al Viro]

On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 08:46:49PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Thread 1 starts an AT_BENEATH path walk using an O_PATH fd
> > pointing to /srv/www/example.org/foo; the path given to the syscall is
> > "bar/../../../../etc/passwd". The path walk enters the "bar" directory.
> > Thread 2 moves /srv/www/example.org/foo/bar to
> > /srv/www/example.org/bar.
> > Thread 1 processes the rest of the path ("../../../../etc/passwd"), never
> > hitting /srv/www/example.org/foo in the process.
> >
> > I'm not really familiar with the VFS internals, but from a coarse look
> > at the patch, it seems like it wouldn't block this?
> 
> I think you're right.
> 
> I guess it would be safe for the RCU case due to the sequence number
> check, but not the non-RCU case.

	Yes and no...  FWIW, to exclude that it would suffice to have
mount --rbind /src/www/example.org/foo /srv/www/example.org/foo done first.
Then this kind of race will end up with -ENOENT due to path_connected()
logics in follow_dotdot_rcu()/follow_dotdot().  I'm not sure about the
intended applications, though - is that thing supposed to be used along with
some horror like seccomp, or...?