Re: [PATCH 1/3] fs_parser: handle parameters that can be empty and don't have a value

[Christian Brauner]

On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 09:31:42PM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote:
> Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 12:46:41PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 03:45:27PM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote:
> >> > Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> > 
> >> > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 04:30:08PM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote:
> >> > >> Currently, only parameters that have the fs_parameter_spec 'type' set to
> >> > >> NULL are handled as 'flag' types.  However, parameters that have the
> >> > >> 'fs_param_can_be_empty' flag set and their value is NULL should also be
> >> > >> handled as 'flag' type, as their type is set to 'fs_value_is_flag'.
> >> > >> 
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxx>
> >> > >> ---
> >> > >>  fs/fs_parser.c | 3 ++-
> >> > >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> > >> 
> >> > >> diff --git a/fs/fs_parser.c b/fs/fs_parser.c
> >> > >> index edb3712dcfa5..53f6cb98a3e0 100644
> >> > >> --- a/fs/fs_parser.c
> >> > >> +++ b/fs/fs_parser.c
> >> > >> @@ -119,7 +119,8 @@ int __fs_parse(struct p_log *log,
> >> > >>  	/* Try to turn the type we were given into the type desired by the
> >> > >>  	 * parameter and give an error if we can't.
> >> > >>  	 */
> >> > >> -	if (is_flag(p)) {
> >> > >> +	if (is_flag(p) ||
> >> > >> +	    (!param->string && (p->flags & fs_param_can_be_empty))) {
> >> > >>  		if (param->type != fs_value_is_flag)
> >> > >>  			return inval_plog(log, "Unexpected value for '%s'",
> >> > >>  				      param->key);
> >> > >
> >> > > If the parameter was derived from FSCONFIG_SET_STRING in fsconfig() then
> >> > > param->string is guaranteed to not be NULL. So really this is only
> >> > > about:
> >> > >
> >> > > FSCONFIG_SET_FD
> >> > > FSCONFIG_SET_BINARY
> >> > > FSCONFIG_SET_PATH
> >> > > FSCONFIG_SET_PATH_EMPTY
> >> > >
> >> > > and those values being used without a value. What filesystem does this?
> >> > > I don't see any.
> >> > >
> >> > > The tempting thing to do here is to to just remove fs_param_can_be_empty
> >> > > from every helper that isn't fs_param_is_string() until we actually have
> >> > > a filesystem that wants to use any of the above as flags. Will lose a
> >> > > lot of code that isn't currently used.
> >> > 
> >> > Right, I find it quite confusing and I may be fixing the issue in the
> >> > wrong place.  What I'm seeing with ext4 when I mount a filesystem using
> >> > the option '-o usrjquota' is that fs_parse() will get:
> >> > 
> >> >  * p->type is set to fs_param_is_string
> >> >    ('p' is a struct fs_parameter_spec, ->type is a function)
> >> >  * param->type is set to fs_value_is_flag
> >> >    ('param' is a struct fs_parameter, ->type is an enum)
> >> > 
> >> > This is because ext4 will use the __fsparam macro to set define a
> >> > fs_param_spec as a fs_param_is_string but will also set the
> >> > fs_param_can_be_empty; and the fsconfig() syscall will get that parameter
> >> > as a flag.  That's why param->string will be NULL in this case.
> >> 
> >> Thanks for the details. Let me see if I get this right. So you're saying that
> >> someone is doing:
> >> 
> >> fsconfig(..., FSCONFIG_SET_FLAG, "usrjquota", NULL, 0); // [1]
> >> 
> >> ? Is so that is a vital part of the explanation. So please put that in the
> >> commit message.
> >> 
> >> Then ext4 defines:
> >> 
> >> 	fsparam_string_empty ("usrjquota",		Opt_usrjquota),
> >> 
> >> So [1] gets us:
> >> 
> >>         param->type == fs_value_is_flag
> >>         param->string == NULL
> >> 
> >> Now we enter into
> >> fs_parse()
> >> -> __fs_parse()
> >>    -> fs_lookup_key() for @param and that does:
> >> 
> >>         bool want_flag = param->type == fs_value_is_flag;
> >> 
> >>         *negated = false;
> >>         for (p = desc; p->name; p++) {
> >>                 if (strcmp(p->name, name) != 0)
> >>                         continue;
> >>                 if (likely(is_flag(p) == want_flag))
> >>                         return p;
> >>                 other = p;
> >>         }
> >> 
> >> So we don't have a flag parameter defined so the only real match we get is
> >> @other for:
> >> 
> >>         fsparam_string_empty ("usrjquota",		Opt_usrjquota),
> >> 
> >> What happens now is that you call p->type == fs_param_is_string() and that
> >> rejects it as bad parameter because param->type == fs_value_is_flag !=
> >> fs_value_is_string as required. So you dont end up getting Opt_userjquota
> >> called with param->string NULL, right? So there's not NULL deref or anything,
> >> right?
> >> 
> >> You just fail to set usrjquota. Ok, so I think the correct fix is to do
> >> something like the following in ext4:
> >> 
> >>         fsparam_string_empty ("usrjquota",      Opt_usrjquota),
> >>         fs_param_flag        ("usrjquota",      Opt_usrjquota_flag),
> >> 
> >> and then in the switch you can do:
> >> 
> >> switch (opt)
> >> case Opt_usrjquota:
> >>         // string thing
> >> case Opt_usrjquota_flag:
> >>         // flag thing
> >> 
> >> And I really think we should kill all empty handling for non-string types and
> >> only add that when there's a filesystem that actually needs it.
> >
> > So one option is to do the following:
> 
> Thanks a lot of your review (I forgot to thank you in my other reply!).
> 
> Now, I haven't yet tested this properly, but I think that's a much simpler
> and cleaner way of fixing this issue.  Now, although it needs some
> testing, I think the patch has one problem (see comment below).
> 
> Do you want me to send out a cleaned-up version[*] of it after some

Yes, please. That would be great!