Messages in this thread | | | From | Christian Brauner <> | Date | Thu, 8 Mar 2018 12:22:49 +0100 | Subject | Re: Invalid /proc/<pid>/fd/{0,1,2} symlinks with TIOCGPTPEER |
| |
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:22:29AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 01:30:52PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@canonical.com> writes: > > > > > Hey, > > > > > > We discovered a potential bug in the devpts implementation via > > > TIOCGPTPEER ioctl()s today. We've tackled a similar problem already in: > > > > > > commit 311fc65c9fb9c966bca8e6f3ff8132ce57344ab9 > > > Author: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> > > > Date: Thu Aug 24 15:13:29 2017 -0500 > > > > > > pty: Repair TIOCGPTPEER > > > > > > Most libcs will *still* look at /dev/ptmx when opening the master fd of > > > pty device. Usually, /dev/ptmx will nowadays be either a symlink to > > > /dev/pts/ptmx or it will be a second device node with permissions 666 > > > whereas /dev/pts/ptmx will usually have permissions 000. Afaik, we've > > > also always supported making /dev/ptmx a bind-mount to /dev/pts/ptmx or > > > at least I haven't observed any issues with this so far and it's > > > something fairly common in containers. So in short, it should be legal > > > to do: > > > > > > mount --bind /dev/pts/ptmx /dev/ptmx > > > chmod 666 /dev/ptmx > > > > > > However, for any libc implementation or program that uses TIOCGPTPEER > > > the /proc/<pid>/fd/{0,1,2} symlinks are broken (currently affects at > > > least glibc 2.27) with bind-mounts of /dev/pts/ptmx to /dev/ptmx. A > > > quick reproducer is: > > > > > > unshare --mount > > > mount --bind /dev/pts/ptmx /dev/ptmx > > > chmod 666 /dev/ptmx > > > script > > > ls -al /proc/self/fd/0 > > > > > > Let's assume the slave device index I received was 5 then I would expect to > > > see: > > > > > > ls -al /proc/self/fd/0 > > > lrwx------ 1 chb chb 64 Mar 7 16:41 /proc/self/fd/0 -> /dev/pts/5 > > > > > > But what I actually see is: > > > > > > ls -al /proc/self/fd/0 > > > lrwx------ 1 chb chb 64 Mar 7 16:41 /proc/self/fd/0 -> / > > > > > > I think the explanation for this is fairly straightforward. When > > > userspace does: > > > > > > master = open("/dev/ptmx", O_RDWR | O_NOCTTY); > > > slave = ioctl(master, TIOCGPTPEER, O_RDWR | O_NOCTTY); > > > > > > and /dev/ptmx is a bind-mount of /dev/pts/ptmx looking up the root mount > > > of the dentry for the slave it appears to the kernel as if the dentry is > > > escaping it's bind-mount: > > > > > > ├─/dev udev devtmpfs rw,nosuid,relatime,size=4001260k,nr_inodes=1000315,mode=755 > > > │ ├─/dev/pts devpts devpts rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000 > > > │ └─/dev/ptmx devpts[/ptmx] devpts rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000 > > > > > > since the root mount of the dentry is /dev/pts but the root mount of > > > /dev/ptmx is /dev if I'm correct so similar to what Linus pointed out in > > > a previous discussion (see [1]) before. So we still record the "wrong" > > > vfsmount when /dev/ptmx is a bind-mount and then hit the problem when we > > > call devpts_mntget() in drivers/tty/pty.c. > > > > I think your analysis of why we return / is correct. If the root of the > > mount is a file (aka /dev/pts/ptmx). Then any other file will on that > > mount will not be under the root of the mount, and will be displayed > > as '/'. Because we have in fact escaped the root of the mount. > > > > I think this is more of a quality of implementation issue more than a > > bug per se. > > It's at least a regression since this used to work before. :) > > > > > > So I thought about this and - in case my analysis is correct - the > > > solution didn't seem obvious to me as a bind-mount has no concept of > > > what it's "parent" is (Which in this case should be the devpts mount at > > > /dev/pts.). > > > > We might be able to improve the quality of the implementation, by > > noticing this case early (sb->s_root != mnt->mnt_root) and using the > > same tricks on /dev/pts/ptmx as we do on /dev/ptmx. That is looking > > in ../pts and see if the filesystem we want is there. > > > > It would be a wee bit tricky but doable. The practical question becomes > > what breaks and what makes it worth maintaining such a mechanism. > > > > I don't remember how important it is to have a valid path in proc. So > > I won't comment on how important it is to improve the quality of > > the implementation. > > It's quite important for containers. The problem is that we can't (yet) > mknod() in a user namespace and making /dev/ptmx a symlink to > /dev/pts/ptmx will cause issues when used together with path-based LSMs > like AppArmor so a bind-mount is the only reliable option. > > > > > The code can be improved by doing something like: > > Right, what do you think about Linus suggestion? I'm happy to look into > it.
Ah you're pointing at a similar solution. Sorry, I missed it on the first pass. I'll send a patch soon.
Christian
> > Christian > > > > > static int devpts_ptmx_pts_path(struct path *path) > > { > > struct super_block *sb; > > int err; > > > > /* Is a devpts filesystem at "pts" in the same directory? */ > > err = path_pts(path); > > if (err) > > return err; > > > > /* Is the path the root of a devpts filesystem? */ > > sb = path->mnt->mnt_sb; > > if ((sb->s_magic != DEVPTS_SUPER_MAGIC) || > > (path->mnt->mnt_root != sb->s_root)) > > return -ENODEV; > > > > return 0; > > } > > > > .... > > if ((DEVPTS_SB(path.mnt->mnt_sb) == fsi) && > > (path.mnt->mnt_root == fsi->ptmx_dentry)) { > > /* While the start point is a bind mount of single file > > * walk upwards. > > */ > > while ((path.mnt->mnt_root == path.dentry) && follow_up(&path)) > > ; > > if (devpts_ptmx_pts_path(&path) == 0) { > > dput(path.dentry); > > return path.mnt; > > } > > /* No luck fall through to the old code */ > > path_put(path); > > path = filp->f_path; > > path_get(&path); > > } > > > > The fall through vs fail would be a judgement on how important it is to > > have a useable path in proc for TIOCPTPEER. > > > > Eric
| |