Re: [RESEND PATCH v3] fuse: Abort waiting for a response if the daemon receives a fatal signal

[Eric W. Biederman]

Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 7:54 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:48 PM Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This patch removes one kind of the deadlocks inside the fuse daemon. The
>> >> problem appear when the fuse daemon itself makes a file operation on its
>> >> filesystem and receives a fatal signal.
>> >>
>> >> This deadlock can be interrupted via fusectl filesystem. But if you have
>> >> many fuse mountpoints, it will be difficult to figure out which
>> >> connection to break.
>> >>
>> >> This patch aborts the connection if the fuse server receives a fatal
>> >> signal.
>> >
>> > The patch itself might be acceptable, but I have some questions.
>> >
>> > To logic of this patch says:
>> >
>> > "If a task having the fuse device open in it's fd table receives
>> > SIGKILL (and filesystem was initially mounted in a non-init user
>> > namespace), then abort the filesystem operation"
>> >
>> > You just say "server" instead of "task having the fuse device open in
>> > it's fd table" which is sloppy to say the least.  It might also lead
>> > to regressions, although I agree that it's unlikely.
>> >
>> > Also how is this solving any security issue?   Just create the request
>> > loop using two fuse filesystems and the deadlock avoidance has just
>> > been circumvented.   So AFAICS "selling" this as a CVE fix is not
>> > appropriate.
>>
>> The original report came in with a CVE on it.  So referencing that CVE
>> seems reasonable.  Even if the issue isn't particularly serious.  It is
>> very annoying not to be able to kill processes with SIGKILL or the OOM
>> killer.
>>
>> You have a good point about the looping issue.  I wonder if there is a
>> way to enhance this comparatively simple approach to prevent the more
>> complex scenario you mention.
>
> Let's take a concrete example:
>
> - task A is "server" for fuse fs a
> - task B is "server" for fuse fs b
> - task C: chmod(/a/x, ...)
> - task A: read UNLINK request
> - task A: chmod(/b/x, ...)
> - task B: read UNLINK request
> - task B: chmod (/a/x, ...)
>
> Now B is blocking on i_mutex on x , A is waiting for reply from B, C
> is holding i_mutex on x and waiting for reply from A.
>
> At this point B is truly uninterruptible (and I'm not betting large
> sums on Al accepting killable VFS locks patches), so killing B is out.
>
> Killing A with this patch does nothing, since A does not have b's dev
> fd in its fdtable.
>
> Killing C again does nothing, since it has no fuse dev fd at all.
>
>> Does tweaking the code to close every connection represented by a fuse
>> file descriptor after a SIGKILL has been delevered create any problems?
>
> In the above example are you suggesting that SIGKILL on A would abort
> "a" from fs b's code?   Yeah, that would work, I guess.  Poking into
> another instance this way sounds pretty horrid, though.

Yes.  That is what I am suggesting.

Layering purity it does not have.  It is also fragile as it only
handles interactions between fuse instances.

The advantage is that it is a very small amount of code.  I think there
is enough care to get a small change like that in.  (With a big fat
comment describing why it is imperfect).  I don't know if there is
enough care to get the general solution (you describe below) implemented
and merged in any kind of timely manner.

>> > What's the reason for making this user-ns only?  If we drop the
>> > security aspect, then I don't see any reason not to do this
>> > unconditionally.
>>
>>
>> > Also note, there's a proper solution for making fuse requests always
>> > killable, and that is to introduce a shadow locking that ensures
>> > correct fs operation in the face of requests that have returned and
>> > released their respective VFS locks.   Now this would be a much more
>> > complex solution, but also a much more correct one, not having issues
>> > with correctly defining what a server is (which is not a solvable
>> > problem).
>>
>> Is this the solution that was removed at some point from fuse,
>> or are you talking about something else?
>>
>> I think you are talking about adding a set of fuse specific locks
>> so fuse does not need to rely on the vfs locks.  I don't quite have
>> enough insight to see that bigger problem so if you can expand in more
>> detail I would appreciate it.
>
> Okay, so the problem with making the wait_event() at the end of
> request_wait_answer() killable is that it would allow compromising the
> server's integrity by unlocking the VFS level lock (which protects the
> fs) while the server hasn't yet finished the request.
>
> The way this would be solvable is to add a fuse level lock for each
> VFS level lock.   That lock would be taken before the request is sent
> to userspace and would be released when the answer is received.
> Normally there would be zero contention on these shadow locks, but if
> a request is forcibly killed, then the VFS lock is released and the
> shadow lock now protects the filesystem.
>
> This wouldn't solve the case where a fuse fs is deadlocked on a VFS
> lock (e.g. task B), but would allow tasks blocked directly on a fuse
> filesystem to be killed (e.g. task A or C, both of which would unwind
> the deadlock).

Are we just talking the inode lock here?

I am trying to figure out if this is a straight forward change.
Or if it will take a fair amount of work.

If the change is just wordy we can probably do the good version and call
fuse well and truly fixed.  But I don't currently see the problem well
enough to know what the good change would look like even on a single
code path.

Eric