Re: [PATCH bpf-next v9 05/10] bpf,landlock: Add a new map type: inode

[MickaÃl SalaÃn]

On 26/06/2019 00:52, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:52:34PM +0200, MickaÃl SalaÃn wrote:
>> +/* must call iput(inode) after this call */
>> +static struct inode *inode_from_fd(int ufd, bool check_access)
>> +{
>> +    struct inode *ret;
>> +    struct fd f;
>> +    int deny;
>> +
>> +    f = fdget(ufd);
>> +    if (unlikely(!f.file || !file_inode(f.file))) {
>> +            ret = ERR_PTR(-EBADF);
>> +            goto put_fd;
>> +    }
>
> Just when does one get a NULL file_inode()?  The reason I'm asking is
> that arseloads of code would break if one managed to create such
> a beast...

I didn't find any API documentation about this guarantee, so I followed
a defensive programming approach. I'll remove the file_inode() check.

>
> Incidentally, that should be return ERR_PTR(-EBADF); fdput() is wrong there.

Right, I'll fix that.

>
>> +    }
>> +    /* check if the FD is tied to a mount point */
>> +    /* TODO: add this check when called from an eBPF program too */
>> +    if (unlikely(!f.file->f_path.mnt
>
> Again, the same question - when the hell can that happen?

Defensive programming again, I'll remove it.

> If you are
> sitting on an exploitable roothole, do share it...
>
>  || f.file->f_path.mnt->mnt_flags &
>> +                            MNT_INTERNAL)) {
>> +            ret = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> +            goto put_fd;
>
> What does it have to do with mountpoints, anyway?

I want to only manage inodes tied to a userspace-visible file system
(this check may not be enough though). It doesn't make sense to be able
to add inodes which are not mounted, to this kind of map.

>
>> +/* called from syscall */
>> +static int sys_inode_map_delete_elem(struct bpf_map *map, struct inode *key)
>> +{
>> +    struct inode_array *array = container_of(map, struct inode_array, map);
>> +    struct inode *inode;
>> +    int i;
>> +
>> +    WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
>> +    for (i = 0; i < array->map.max_entries; i++) {
>> +            if (array->elems[i].inode == key) {
>> +                    inode = xchg(&array->elems[i].inode, NULL);
>> +                    array->nb_entries--;
>
> Umm...  Is that intended to be atomic in any sense?

nb_entries is not used as a bound check but to avoid walking uselessly
through the (pre-allocated) array when adding a new element, but I'll
use an atomic to avoid inconsistencies anyway.

>
>> +                    iput(inode);
>> +                    return 0;
>> +            }
>> +    }
>> +    return -ENOENT;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* called from syscall */
>> +int bpf_inode_map_delete_elem(struct bpf_map *map, int *key)
>> +{
>> +    struct inode *inode;
>> +    int err;
>> +
>> +    inode = inode_from_fd(*key, false);
>> +    if (IS_ERR(inode))
>> +            return PTR_ERR(inode);
>> +    err = sys_inode_map_delete_elem(map, inode);
>> +    iput(inode);
>> +    return err;
>> +}
>
> Wait a sec...  So we have those beasties that can have long-term
> references to arbitrary inodes stuck in them?  What will happen
> if you get umount(2) called while such a thing exists?

I though an umount would be denied but no, we get a self-destructed busy
inode and a bug!
What about wrapping the inode's superblock->s_op->destroy_inode() to
first remove the element from the map and then call the real
destroy_inode(), if any?
Or I could update fs/inode.c:destroy_inode() to call inode->free_inode()
if it is set, and set it when such inode is referenced by a map?
Or maybe I could hold the referencing file in the map and then wrap its
f_op?


--
MickaÃl SalaÃn
ANSSI/SDE/ST/LAM

Les donnÃes à caractÃre personnel recueillies et traitÃes dans le cadre de cet Ãchange, le sont à seule fin dâexÃcution dâune relation professionnelle et sâopÃrent dans cette seule finalità et pour la durÃe nÃcessaire à cette relation. Si vous souhaitez faire usage de vos droits de consultation, de rectification et de suppression de vos donnÃes, veuillez contacter contact.rgpd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Si vous avez reÃu ce message par erreur, nous vous remercions dâen informer lâexpÃditeur et de dÃtruire le message. The personal data collected and processed during this exchange aims solely at completing a business relationship and is limited to the necessary duration of that relationship. If you wish to use your rights of consultation, rectification and deletion of your data, please contact: contact.rgpd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx If you have received this message in error, we thank you for informing the sender and destroying the message.