2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-10-18 20:28:07 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
include cleanup: Update gfp.h and slab.h includes to prepare for breaking implicit slab.h inclusion from percpu.h
percpu.h is included by sched.h and module.h and thus ends up being
included when building most .c files. percpu.h includes slab.h which
in turn includes gfp.h making everything defined by the two files
universally available and complicating inclusion dependencies.
percpu.h -> slab.h dependency is about to be removed. Prepare for
this change by updating users of gfp and slab facilities include those
headers directly instead of assuming availability. As this conversion
needs to touch large number of source files, the following script is
used as the basis of conversion.
http://userweb.kernel.org/~tj/misc/slabh-sweep.py
The script does the followings.
* Scan files for gfp and slab usages and update includes such that
only the necessary includes are there. ie. if only gfp is used,
gfp.h, if slab is used, slab.h.
* When the script inserts a new include, it looks at the include
blocks and try to put the new include such that its order conforms
to its surrounding. It's put in the include block which contains
core kernel includes, in the same order that the rest are ordered -
alphabetical, Christmas tree, rev-Xmas-tree or at the end if there
doesn't seem to be any matching order.
* If the script can't find a place to put a new include (mostly
because the file doesn't have fitting include block), it prints out
an error message indicating which .h file needs to be added to the
file.
The conversion was done in the following steps.
1. The initial automatic conversion of all .c files updated slightly
over 4000 files, deleting around 700 includes and adding ~480 gfp.h
and ~3000 slab.h inclusions. The script emitted errors for ~400
files.
2. Each error was manually checked. Some didn't need the inclusion,
some needed manual addition while adding it to implementation .h or
embedding .c file was more appropriate for others. This step added
inclusions to around 150 files.
3. The script was run again and the output was compared to the edits
from #2 to make sure no file was left behind.
4. Several build tests were done and a couple of problems were fixed.
e.g. lib/decompress_*.c used malloc/free() wrappers around slab
APIs requiring slab.h to be added manually.
5. The script was run on all .h files but without automatically
editing them as sprinkling gfp.h and slab.h inclusions around .h
files could easily lead to inclusion dependency hell. Most gfp.h
inclusion directives were ignored as stuff from gfp.h was usually
wildly available and often used in preprocessor macros. Each
slab.h inclusion directive was examined and added manually as
necessary.
6. percpu.h was updated not to include slab.h.
7. Build test were done on the following configurations and failures
were fixed. CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL was turned off for all tests (as my
distributed build env didn't work with gcov compiles) and a few
more options had to be turned off depending on archs to make things
build (like ipr on powerpc/64 which failed due to missing writeq).
* x86 and x86_64 UP and SMP allmodconfig and a custom test config.
* powerpc and powerpc64 SMP allmodconfig
* sparc and sparc64 SMP allmodconfig
* ia64 SMP allmodconfig
* s390 SMP allmodconfig
* alpha SMP allmodconfig
* um on x86_64 SMP allmodconfig
8. percpu.h modifications were reverted so that it could be applied as
a separate patch and serve as bisection point.
Given the fact that I had only a couple of failures from tests on step
6, I'm fairly confident about the coverage of this conversion patch.
If there is a breakage, it's likely to be something in one of the arch
headers which should be easily discoverable easily on most builds of
the specific arch.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Guess-its-ok-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>
2010-03-24 17:04:11 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2008-10-18 20:28:07 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-04-02 16:57:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-04-02 16:57:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:45 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-04-02 16:57:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-10-18 20:28:07 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
devcgroup: relax white-list protection down to RCU
Currently this list is protected with a simple spinlock, even for reading
from one. This is OK, but can be better.
Actually I want it to be better very much, since after replacing the
OpenVZ device permissions engine with the cgroup-based one I noticed, that
we set 12 default device permissions for each newly created container (for
/dev/null, full, terminals, ect devices), and people sometimes have up to
20 perms more, so traversing the ~30-40 elements list under a spinlock
doesn't seem very good.
Here's the RCU protection for white-list - dev_whitelist_item-s are added
and removed under the devcg->lock, but are looked up in permissions
checking under the rcu_read_lock.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-07-25 01:47:07 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:45 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-05 22:46:24 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-08 20:11:23 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-05 22:46:24 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-08 10:36:58 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-04-02 16:57:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-06 09:16:53 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-04-02 16:57:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-06 09:16:53 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-05 22:46:28 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-05 22:46:28 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-05 22:46:28 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-05 22:46:28 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-04-02 16:57:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-06 09:16:53 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
devcgroup: relax white-list protection down to RCU
Currently this list is protected with a simple spinlock, even for reading
from one. This is OK, but can be better.
Actually I want it to be better very much, since after replacing the
OpenVZ device permissions engine with the cgroup-based one I noticed, that
we set 12 default device permissions for each newly created container (for
/dev/null, full, terminals, ect devices), and people sometimes have up to
20 perms more, so traversing the ~30-40 elements list under a spinlock
doesn't seem very good.
Here's the RCU protection for white-list - dev_whitelist_item-s are added
and removed under the devcg->lock, but are looked up in permissions
checking under the rcu_read_lock.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-07-25 01:47:07 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-03-15 18:07:57 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-21 16:41:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-06 09:16:53 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-21 16:41:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-08 20:11:23 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-08 20:11:23 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2013-08-08 20:11:23 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2014-05-16 13:22:48 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-08 20:11:23 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2013-08-08 20:11:23 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-08 20:11:23 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-08 20:11:23 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-08-08 20:11:23 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-21 16:41:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-13 12:14:02 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:08 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:08 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-05 12:28:04 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-12-05 12:28:04 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
devcgroup: relax white-list protection down to RCU
Currently this list is protected with a simple spinlock, even for reading
from one. This is OK, but can be better.
Actually I want it to be better very much, since after replacing the
OpenVZ device permissions engine with the cgroup-based one I noticed, that
we set 12 default device permissions for each newly created container (for
/dev/null, full, terminals, ect devices), and people sometimes have up to
20 perms more, so traversing the ~30-40 elements list under a spinlock
doesn't seem very good.
Here's the RCU protection for white-list - dev_whitelist_item-s are added
and removed under the devcg->lock, but are looked up in permissions
checking under the rcu_read_lock.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-07-25 01:47:07 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
devcgroup: relax white-list protection down to RCU
Currently this list is protected with a simple spinlock, even for reading
from one. This is OK, but can be better.
Actually I want it to be better very much, since after replacing the
OpenVZ device permissions engine with the cgroup-based one I noticed, that
we set 12 default device permissions for each newly created container (for
/dev/null, full, terminals, ect devices), and people sometimes have up to
20 perms more, so traversing the ~30-40 elements list under a spinlock
doesn't seem very good.
Here's the RCU protection for white-list - dev_whitelist_item-s are added
and removed under the devcg->lock, but are looked up in permissions
checking under the rcu_read_lock.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-07-25 01:47:07 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-04-24 15:33:21 -04:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-04-24 15:33:21 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-04-24 15:33:21 -04:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-04-24 15:33:21 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-06 09:16:53 -08:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-04-24 15:33:21 -04:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-04-24 15:33:21 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:45 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:45 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:45 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:44 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:45 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:44 -05:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:45 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:44 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:45 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:44 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-05-16 13:22:48 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
cgroup: add css_parent()
Currently, controllers have to explicitly follow the cgroup hierarchy
to find the parent of a given css. cgroup is moving towards using
cgroup_subsys_state as the main controller interface construct, so
let's provide a way to climb the hierarchy using just csses.
This patch implements css_parent() which, given a css, returns its
parent. The function is guarnateed to valid non-NULL parent css as
long as the target css is not at the top of the hierarchy.
freezer, cpuset, cpu, cpuacct, hugetlb, memory, net_cls and devices
are converted to use css_parent() instead of accessing cgroup->parent
directly.
* __parent_ca() is dropped from cpuacct and its usage is replaced with
parent_ca(). The only difference between the two was NULL test on
cgroup->parent which is now embedded in css_parent() making the
distinction moot. Note that eventually a css->parent field will be
added to css and the NULL check in css_parent() will go away.
This patch shouldn't cause any behavior differences.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
2013-08-08 20:11:23 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-05-05 11:18:59 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-05-16 13:22:48 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2014-05-05 11:18:59 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-06 07:25:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-08 20:11:25 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-05-24 10:55:38 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2013-08-08 20:11:25 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-05-24 10:55:38 +09:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-08 20:11:27 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2013-05-24 10:55:38 +09:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-05-24 10:55:38 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2013-05-24 10:55:38 +09:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-03-19 10:23:54 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:41 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:45 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-05-16 13:22:48 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-05-16 13:22:52 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-06 07:25:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-05-16 13:22:52 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:41 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:41 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-05-05 11:18:59 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-05-05 11:18:59 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-05-05 11:18:59 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-05-13 12:16:21 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 01:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-04-02 16:57:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-05-13 12:16:21 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-04-02 16:57:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-05-13 12:16:21 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-05-13 12:16:21 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-05-13 12:16:21 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-05 12:28:04 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 12:09:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-08 10:36:58 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-19 08:13:38 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-15 11:55:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-07-15 11:05:09 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2008-09-02 14:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
device_cgroup: rework device access check and exception checking
Whenever a device file is opened and checked against current device
cgroup rules, it uses the same function (may_access()) as when a new
exception rule is added by writing devices.{allow,deny}. And in both
cases, the algorithm is the same, doesn't matter the behavior.
First problem is having device access to be considered the same as rule
checking. Consider the following structure:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
A new exception is added to B by writing devices.deny:
c 12:34 rw
When checking if that exception is allowed in may_access():
if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
if (behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
/* the exception will deny access to certain devices */
return true;
Which is ok, since B is not getting more privileges than A, it doesn't
matter and the rule is accepted
Now, consider it's a device file open check and the process belongs to
cgroup B. The access will be generated as:
behavior: allow
exception: c 12:34 rw
The very same chunk of code will allow it, even if there's an explicit
exception telling to do otherwise.
A simple test case:
# mkdir new_group
# cd new_group
# echo $$ >tasks
# echo "c 1:3 w" >devices.deny
# echo >/dev/null
# echo $?
0
This is a serious bug and was introduced on
c39a2a3018f8 devcg: prepare may_access() for hierarchy support
To solve this problem, the device file open function was split from the
new exception check.
Second problem is how exceptions are processed by may_access(). The
first part of the said function tries to match fully with an existing
exception:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ex, &dev_cgroup->exceptions, list) {
if ((refex->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !(ex->type & DEV_BLOCK))
continue;
if ((refex->type & DEV_CHAR) && !(ex->type & DEV_CHAR))
continue;
if (ex->major != ~0 && ex->major != refex->major)
continue;
if (ex->minor != ~0 && ex->minor != refex->minor)
continue;
if (refex->access & (~ex->access))
continue;
match = true;
break;
}
That means the new exception should be contained into an existing one to
be considered a match:
New exception Existing match? notes
b 12:34 rwm b 12:34 rwm yes
b 12:34 r b *:34 rw yes
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 w no extra "r"
b *:34 rw b 12:34 rw no too broad "*"
b *:34 rw b *:34 rwm yes
Which is fine in some cases. Consider:
A (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case the full match makes sense, the new exception cannot add
more access than the parent allows
But this doesn't always work, consider:
A (default behavior: allow, exceptions disallow access)
\
B (default behavior: deny, exceptions allow access)
In this case, a new exception in B shouldn't match any of the exceptions
in A, after all you can't allow something that was forbidden by A. But
consider this scenario:
New exception Existing in A match? outcome
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no exception is accepted
Because the new exception has "w" as extra, it doesn't match, so it'll
be added to B's exception list.
The same problem can happen during a file access check. Consider a
cgroup with allow as default behavior:
Access Exception match?
b 12:34 rw b 12:34 r no
In this case, the access didn't match any of the exceptions in the
cgroup, which is required since exceptions will disallow access.
To solve this problem, two new functions were created to match an
exception either fully or partially. In the example above, a partial
check will be performed and it'll produce a match since at least
"b 12:34 r" from "b 12:34 rw" access matches.
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2014-04-21 12:13:03 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-06-17 16:26:33 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-02 14:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-07 18:07:46 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-04 17:15:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-02 14:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-25 13:37:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-02 14:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-29 01:00:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
