Re: [PATCH 1/3] namei: implement O_BENEATH-style AT_* flags

[Christian Brauner]

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 02:04:31AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2018-10-01, Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 02:28:03PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 4:28 PM Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > * AT_BENEATH: Disallow ".." or absolute paths (either in the path or
> > > >   found during symlink resolution) to escape the starting point of name
> > > >   resolution, though ".." is permitted in cases like "foo/../bar".
> > > >   Relative symlinks are still allowed (as long as they don't escape the
> > > >   starting point).
> > > 
> > > As I said on the other thread, I would strongly prefer an API that
> > > behaves along the lines of David Drysdale's old patch
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1439458366-8223-2-git-send-email-drysdale@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > > : Forbid any use of "..". This would also be more straightforward to
> > > implement safely. If that doesn't work for you, I would like it if you
> > > could at least make that an option. I would like it if this API could
> > > mitigate straightforward directory traversal bugs such as
> > > https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=1583, where
> > > a confused deputy attempts to access a path like
> > > "/mnt/media_rw/../../data" while intending to access a directory under
> > > "/mnt/media_rw".
> > 
> > Oh, the semantics for this changed in this patchset, hah. I was still on
> > vacation so didn't get to look at it before it was sent out. From prior
> > discussion I remember that the original intention actual was what you
> > argue for. And the patchset should be as tight as possible. Having
> > special cases where ".." is allowed just sounds like an invitation for
> > userspace to get it wrong.
> > Aleksa, did you have a specific use-case in mind that made you change
> > this or was it already present in an earlier iteration of the patchset
> > by someone else?
> 
> Al's original patchset allowed "..". A quick survey of my machine shows
> that there are 100k symlinks that contain ".." (~37% of all symlinks on
> my machine). This indicates to me that you would be restricting a large
> amount of reasonable resolutions because of this restriction.
> 
> I posted a proposed way to protect against ".." shenanigans. If it's
> turns out this is not possible, I'm okay with disallowing ".." (assuming
> Al is also okay with that).

Sounds acceptable to me.