Re: [PATCH v9 05/10] namei: O_BENEATH-style path resolution flags

[Aleksa Sarai]

On 2019-07-12, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 07, 2019 at 12:57:32AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > @@ -1442,8 +1464,11 @@ static int follow_dotdot_rcu(struct nameidata *nd)
> >     struct inode *inode = nd->inode;
> >  
> >     while (1) {
> > -           if (path_equal(&nd->path, &nd->root))
> > +           if (path_equal(&nd->path, &nd->root)) {
> > +                   if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_BENEATH))
> > +                           return -EXDEV;
> 
> > @@ -1468,6 +1493,8 @@ static int follow_dotdot_rcu(struct nameidata *nd)
> >                             return -ECHILD;
> >                     if (&mparent->mnt == nd->path.mnt)
> >                             break;
> > +                   if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_XDEV))
> > +                           return -EXDEV;
> >                     /* we know that mountpoint was pinned */
> >                     nd->path.dentry = mountpoint;
> >                     nd->path.mnt = &mparent->mnt;
> > @@ -1482,6 +1509,8 @@ static int follow_dotdot_rcu(struct nameidata *nd)
> >                     return -ECHILD;
> >             if (!mounted)
> >                     break;
> > +           if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_XDEV))
> > +                   return -EXDEV;
> 
> Are you sure these failure exits in follow_dotdot_rcu() won't give
> suprious hard errors?

I could switch to -ECHILD for the *_rcu() checks if you'd prefer that.
Though, I'd have (probably naively) thought that you'd have already
gotten -ECHILD from the seqlock checks if there was a race during ".."
handling.

> > +   if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_BENEATH)) {
> > +           error = dirfd_path_init(nd);
> > +           if (unlikely(error))
> > +                   return ERR_PTR(error);
> > +           nd->root = nd->path;
> > +           if (!(nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU))
> > +                   path_get(&nd->root);
> > +   }
> >     if (*s == '/') {
> >             if (likely(!nd->root.mnt))
> >                     set_root(nd);
> > @@ -2350,9 +2400,11 @@ static const char *path_init(struct nameidata *nd, 
> > unsigned flags)
> >                     s = ERR_PTR(error);
> >             return s;
> >     }
> > -   error = dirfd_path_init(nd);
> > -   if (unlikely(error))
> > -           return ERR_PTR(error);
> > +   if (likely(!nd->path.mnt)) {
> 
> Is that a weird way of saying "if we hadn't already called dirfd_path_init()"?

Yes. I did it to be more consistent with the other "have we got the
root" checks elsewhere. Is there another way you'd prefer I do it?

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature