[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] virtiofsd: Don't allow file creation with FUSE_OPEN
From: |
Stefan Hajnoczi |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] virtiofsd: Don't allow file creation with FUSE_OPEN |
Date: |
Mon, 21 Jun 2021 14:36:12 +0100 |
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 04:15:18PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> A well behaved FUSE client uses FUSE_CREATE to create files. It isn't
> supposed to pass O_CREAT along a FUSE_OPEN request, as documented in
> the "fuse_lowlevel.h" header :
>
> /**
> * Open a file
> *
> * Open flags are available in fi->flags. The following rules
> * apply.
> *
> * - Creation (O_CREAT, O_EXCL, O_NOCTTY) flags will be
> * filtered out / handled by the kernel.
>
> But if it does anyway, virtiofsd crashes with:
>
> *** invalid openat64 call: O_CREAT or O_TMPFILE without mode ***: terminated
>
> This is because virtiofsd ends up passing this flag to openat() without
> passing a mode_t 4th argument which is mandatory with O_CREAT, and glibc
> aborts.
>
> The offending path is:
>
> lo_open()
> lo_do_open()
> lo_inode_open()
>
> Other callers of lo_inode_open() only pass O_RDWR and lo_create()
> passes a valid fd to lo_do_open() which thus doesn't even call
> lo_inode_open() in this case.
>
> Specifying O_CREAT with FUSE_OPEN is a protocol violation. Check this
> in lo_open() and return an error to the client : EINVAL since this is
> already what glibc returns with other illegal flag combinations.
>
> The FUSE filesystem doesn't currently support O_TMPFILE, but the very
> same would happen if O_TMPFILE was passed in a FUSE_OPEN request. Check
> that as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>
> ---
> tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
Thank you!
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature