Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] fs: invoke LSM file_open hook in do_dentry_open for O_PATH fds as well

[Al Viro]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 02:21:41PM -0700, Ryan Lee wrote:
> Currently, opening O_PATH file descriptors completely bypasses the LSM
> infrastructure. Invoking the LSM file_open hook for O_PATH fds will
> be necessary for e.g. mediating the fsmount() syscall.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Lee <ryan.lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/open.c | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
> index 30bfcddd505d..0f8542bf6cd4 100644
> --- a/fs/open.c
> +++ b/fs/open.c
> @@ -921,8 +921,13 @@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file *f,
>  	if (unlikely(f->f_flags & O_PATH)) {
>  		f->f_mode = FMODE_PATH | FMODE_OPENED;
>  		file_set_fsnotify_mode(f, FMODE_NONOTIFY);
>  		f->f_op = &empty_fops;
> -		return 0;
> +		/*
> +		 * do_o_path in fs/namei.c unconditionally invokes path_put
> +		 * after this function returns, so don't path_put the path
> +		 * upon LSM rejection of O_PATH opening
> +		 */
> +		return security_file_open(f);

Unconditional path_put() in do_o_path() has nothing to do with that -
what gets dropped there is the reference acquired there; the reference
acquired (and not dropped) here is the one that went into ->f_path.
Since you are leaving FMODE_OPENED set, you will have __fput() drop
that reference.

Basically, you are simulating behaviour on the O_DIRECT open of
something that does not support O_DIRECT - return an error, with
->f_path and FMODE_OPENED left in place.

Said that, what I do not understand is the point of that exercise -
why does LSM need to veto anything for those and why is security_file_open()
the right place for such checks?

The second part is particularly interesting...