Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:32:39 -0500 | From | Tyler Hicks <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 053/190] Revert "ecryptfs: replace BUG_ON with error handling code" |
| |
On 2021-04-21 17:03:24, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:13:29AM -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote: > > > > It *is* functionally harmless, AFAICS, but only because the condition > > > is really impossible. However, > > > * it refers to vague (s)tool they'd produced, nevermind that > > > all they really do is "find BUG_ON(), replace with returning an error". > > > * unlike BUG_ON(), the replacement does *NOT* document the > > > fact that condition should be impossible. > > > IMO either should be sufficient for rejecting the patch. > > > > I agree that it was not a malicious change. There are other places > > within the same function that return -EINVAL and the expectation is that > > errors from this function should be handled safely. > > Umm... Assuming that failure exits in the callers will function properly > if those conditions are true. Which is not obvious at all. > > > That said, I can find no real-world reports of this BUG_ON() ever being > > a problem and I don't think that there's any actual need for this > > change. So, I'm alright with it being reverted considering the > > circumstances. > > AFAICS, at least some parts of that BUG_ON() are provably impossible > (e.g. NULL crypt_stat would've oopsed well upstream of the only call > of that function). ECRYPTFS_STRUCT_INITIALIZED is set after > ecryptfs_alloc_inode() and never cleared, i.e. it should be present > in ecryptfs_inode_to_private(ecryptfs_inode)->crypt_stat.flags for > all inodes. And crypt_stat we are passing to that thing is > calculated as &(ecryptfs_inode_to_private(ecryptfs_inode)->crypt_stat), > which is another reason why it can't be NULL.
I agree.
> > Incidentally, what's ecryptfs_setattr() doing with similar check? > It had been introduced in e10f281bca03 "eCryptfs: initialize crypt_stat > in setattr", which claims > Recent changes in eCryptfs have made it possible to get to ecryptfs_setattr() > with an uninitialized crypt_stat struct. This results in a wide and colorful > variety of unpleasantries. This patch properly initializes the crypt_stat > structure in ecryptfs_setattr() when it is necessary to do so. > and AFAICS at that point the call of ecryptfs_init_crypt_stat() in > ecryptfs_alloc_inode() had already been there and EXCRYPTFS_STRUCT_INITIALIZED > had been (unconditionally) set by it. So how could that check trigger in > ecryptfs_setattr()? No direct calls of that function (then as well as now), > it's only reachable as ecryptfs_{symlink,dir,main}_iops.setattr. The first > two could only end up set by ecryptfs_interpose(), for inode returned by > iget5_locked() (i.e. one that had been returned by ->alloc_inode()), > the last is set by ecryptfs_init_inode(), called by ecryptfs_inode_set(), > passed as callback to iget5_locked() by the same ecryptfs_interpose(). > IOW, again, the inode must have been returned by ->alloc_inode(). > > I realize that it had been a long time ago, but... could somebody > recall what that patch had been about? Michael?
I looked through the commits that proceeded e10f281bca03 and the only thing I can think of is the addition of "passthrough" mode where the lower, encrypted data can be directly read from the eCryptfs mount. It was introduced in commit e77a56ddceee ("[PATCH] eCryptfs: Encrypted passthrough"), several months before e10f281bca03. However, I don't see how it would have left us with an uninitialized crypt_stat in setattr.
Tyler
> Commit in question contains another (and much bigger) chunk; do > the comments in commit message refer to it? Because it really > looks like > if (!(crypt_stat->flags & ECRYPTFS_STRUCT_INITIALIZED)) > ecryptfs_init_crypt_stat(crypt_stat); > part in ecryptfs_setattr() is a confusing no-op...
| |