diff mbox series

[16/16] vfs: return -EOPNOTSUPP for fscaps from vfs_*xattr()

Message ID 20231129-idmap-fscap-refactor-v1-16-da5a26058a5b@kernel.org (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: Paul Moore
Headers show
Series fs: use type-safe uid representation for filesystem capabilities | expand

Commit Message

Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) Nov. 29, 2023, 9:50 p.m. UTC
Now that the new vfs-level interfaces are fully supported and all code
has been converted to use them, stop permitting use of the top-level vfs
xattr interfaces for capabilities xattrs. Unlike with ACLs we still need
to be able to work with fscaps xattrs using lower-level interfaces in a
handful of places, so only use of the top-level xattr interfaces is
restricted.

Signed-off-by: Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) <sforshee@kernel.org>
---
 fs/xattr.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

Comments

Amir Goldstein Nov. 30, 2023, 6:10 a.m. UTC | #1
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:51 PM Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean)
<sforshee@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Now that the new vfs-level interfaces are fully supported and all code
> has been converted to use them, stop permitting use of the top-level vfs
> xattr interfaces for capabilities xattrs. Unlike with ACLs we still need
> to be able to work with fscaps xattrs using lower-level interfaces in a
> handful of places, so only use of the top-level xattr interfaces is
> restricted.

Can you explain why?
Is there an inherent difference between ACLs and fscaps in that respect
or is it just a matter of more work that needs to be done?

>
> Signed-off-by: Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) <sforshee@kernel.org>
> ---
>  fs/xattr.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xattr.c b/fs/xattr.c
> index 372644b15457..4b779779ad8c 100644
> --- a/fs/xattr.c
> +++ b/fs/xattr.c
> @@ -540,6 +540,9 @@ vfs_setxattr(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct dentry *dentry,
>         const void  *orig_value = value;
>         int error;
>
> +       if (!strcmp(name, XATTR_NAME_CAPS))
> +               return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +

It this is really not expected, then it should be an assert and
please use an inline helper like is_posix_acl_xattr():

if (WARN_ON_ONCE(is_fscaps_xattr(name)))

It wouldn't hurt to add those assertions to is_posix_acl_xattr()
cases as well, but that is unrelated to your change.

Thanks,
Amir.
Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) Nov. 30, 2023, 4:40 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:10:15AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:51 PM Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean)
> <sforshee@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Now that the new vfs-level interfaces are fully supported and all code
> > has been converted to use them, stop permitting use of the top-level vfs
> > xattr interfaces for capabilities xattrs. Unlike with ACLs we still need
> > to be able to work with fscaps xattrs using lower-level interfaces in a
> > handful of places, so only use of the top-level xattr interfaces is
> > restricted.
> 
> Can you explain why?
> Is there an inherent difference between ACLs and fscaps in that respect
> or is it just a matter of more work that needs to be done?

There are a number of differences. ACLs have caching, require additional
permission checks, and require a lot of filesystem-specific handling.
fscaps are simpler by comparison, and most filesystems can rely on a
common implementation that just converts to/from raw disk xattrs.

So at minimum I think the lowest level interfaces,
__vfs_{get,set,remove}xattr(), need to continue to allow fscaps, and
that's where ACL xattrs are blocked. Allowing some of the others to
still work with them is a matter of convenience (e.g. using
vfs_getxattr_alloc()) and trying to reduce code duplication. But as you
pointed out I did miss at least duplicating fsnotify_xattr(), so I'm
going to have another look at how I implemented these.

> 
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) <sforshee@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  fs/xattr.c | 9 +++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xattr.c b/fs/xattr.c
> > index 372644b15457..4b779779ad8c 100644
> > --- a/fs/xattr.c
> > +++ b/fs/xattr.c
> > @@ -540,6 +540,9 @@ vfs_setxattr(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct dentry *dentry,
> >         const void  *orig_value = value;
> >         int error;
> >
> > +       if (!strcmp(name, XATTR_NAME_CAPS))
> > +               return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> 
> It this is really not expected, then it should be an assert and
> please use an inline helper like is_posix_acl_xattr():
> 
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(is_fscaps_xattr(name)))

Ack, makes sense.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/fs/xattr.c b/fs/xattr.c
index 372644b15457..4b779779ad8c 100644
--- a/fs/xattr.c
+++ b/fs/xattr.c
@@ -540,6 +540,9 @@  vfs_setxattr(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct dentry *dentry,
 	const void  *orig_value = value;
 	int error;
 
+	if (!strcmp(name, XATTR_NAME_CAPS))
+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
 retry_deleg:
 	inode_lock(inode);
 	error = __vfs_setxattr_locked(idmap, dentry, name, value, size,
@@ -655,6 +658,9 @@  vfs_getxattr(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct dentry *dentry,
 	struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
 	int error;
 
+	if (!strcmp(name, XATTR_NAME_CAPS))
+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
 	error = xattr_permission(idmap, inode, name, MAY_READ);
 	if (error)
 		return error;
@@ -794,6 +800,9 @@  vfs_removexattr(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct dentry *dentry,
 	struct inode *delegated_inode = NULL;
 	int error;
 
+	if (!strcmp(name, XATTR_NAME_CAPS))
+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
 retry_deleg:
 	inode_lock(inode);
 	error = __vfs_removexattr_locked(idmap, dentry,