1
0
Fork 0
alistair23-linux/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h

473 lines
10 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

[PATCH] FUSE - core This patch adds FUSE core. This contains the following files: o inode.c - superblock operations (alloc_inode, destroy_inode, read_inode, clear_inode, put_super, show_options) - registers FUSE filesystem o fuse_i.h - private header file Requirements ============ The most important difference between orinary filesystems and FUSE is the fact, that the filesystem data/metadata is provided by a userspace process run with the privileges of the mount "owner" instead of the kernel, or some remote entity usually running with elevated privileges. The security implication of this is that a non-privileged user must not be able to use this capability to compromise the system. Obvious requirements arising from this are: - mount owner should not be able to get elevated privileges with the help of the mounted filesystem - mount owner should not be able to induce undesired behavior in other users' or the super user's processes - mount owner should not get illegitimate access to information from other users' and the super user's processes These are currently ensured with the following constraints: 1) mount is only allowed to directory or file which the mount owner can modify without limitation (write access + no sticky bit for directories) 2) nosuid,nodev mount options are forced 3) any process running with fsuid different from the owner is denied all access to the filesystem 1) and 2) are ensured by the "fusermount" mount utility which is a setuid root application doing the actual mount operation. 3) is ensured by a check in the permission() method in kernel I started thinking about doing 3) in a different way because Christoph H. made a big deal out of it, saying that FUSE is unacceptable into mainline in this form. The suggested use of private namespaces would be OK, but in their current form have many limitations that make their use impractical (as discussed in this thread). Suggested improvements that would address these limitations: - implement shared subtrees - allow a process to join an existing namespace (make namespaces first-class objects) - implement the namespace creation/joining in a PAM module With all that in place the check of owner against current->fsuid may be removed from the FUSE kernel module, without compromising the security requirements. Suid programs still interesting questions, since they get access even to the private namespace causing some information leak (exact order/timing of filesystem operations performed), giving some ptrace-like capabilities to unprivileged users. BTW this problem is not strictly limited to the namespace approach, since suid programs setting fsuid and accessing users' files will succeed with the current approach too. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-09 14:10:26 -06:00
/*
FUSE: Filesystem in Userspace
Copyright (C) 2001-2005 Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
This program can be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL.
See the file COPYING.
*/
#include <linux/fuse.h>
#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/wait.h>
#include <linux/list.h>
#include <linux/spinlock.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/backing-dev.h>
#include <asm/semaphore.h>
/** Max number of pages that can be used in a single read request */
#define FUSE_MAX_PAGES_PER_REQ 32
/** If more requests are outstanding, then the operation will block */
#define FUSE_MAX_OUTSTANDING 10
/** It could be as large as PATH_MAX, but would that have any uses? */
#define FUSE_NAME_MAX 1024
/** If the FUSE_DEFAULT_PERMISSIONS flag is given, the filesystem
module will check permissions based on the file mode. Otherwise no
permission checking is done in the kernel */
#define FUSE_DEFAULT_PERMISSIONS (1 << 0)
/** If the FUSE_ALLOW_OTHER flag is given, then not only the user
doing the mount will be allowed to access the filesystem */
#define FUSE_ALLOW_OTHER (1 << 1)
[PATCH] FUSE - core This patch adds FUSE core. This contains the following files: o inode.c - superblock operations (alloc_inode, destroy_inode, read_inode, clear_inode, put_super, show_options) - registers FUSE filesystem o fuse_i.h - private header file Requirements ============ The most important difference between orinary filesystems and FUSE is the fact, that the filesystem data/metadata is provided by a userspace process run with the privileges of the mount "owner" instead of the kernel, or some remote entity usually running with elevated privileges. The security implication of this is that a non-privileged user must not be able to use this capability to compromise the system. Obvious requirements arising from this are: - mount owner should not be able to get elevated privileges with the help of the mounted filesystem - mount owner should not be able to induce undesired behavior in other users' or the super user's processes - mount owner should not get illegitimate access to information from other users' and the super user's processes These are currently ensured with the following constraints: 1) mount is only allowed to directory or file which the mount owner can modify without limitation (write access + no sticky bit for directories) 2) nosuid,nodev mount options are forced 3) any process running with fsuid different from the owner is denied all access to the filesystem 1) and 2) are ensured by the "fusermount" mount utility which is a setuid root application doing the actual mount operation. 3) is ensured by a check in the permission() method in kernel I started thinking about doing 3) in a different way because Christoph H. made a big deal out of it, saying that FUSE is unacceptable into mainline in this form. The suggested use of private namespaces would be OK, but in their current form have many limitations that make their use impractical (as discussed in this thread). Suggested improvements that would address these limitations: - implement shared subtrees - allow a process to join an existing namespace (make namespaces first-class objects) - implement the namespace creation/joining in a PAM module With all that in place the check of owner against current->fsuid may be removed from the FUSE kernel module, without compromising the security requirements. Suid programs still interesting questions, since they get access even to the private namespace causing some information leak (exact order/timing of filesystem operations performed), giving some ptrace-like capabilities to unprivileged users. BTW this problem is not strictly limited to the namespace approach, since suid programs setting fsuid and accessing users' files will succeed with the current approach too. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-09 14:10:26 -06:00
/** FUSE inode */
struct fuse_inode {
/** Inode data */
struct inode inode;
/** Unique ID, which identifies the inode between userspace
* and kernel */
u64 nodeid;
/** Number of lookups on this inode */
u64 nlookup;
/** The request used for sending the FORGET message */
struct fuse_req *forget_req;
[PATCH] FUSE - core This patch adds FUSE core. This contains the following files: o inode.c - superblock operations (alloc_inode, destroy_inode, read_inode, clear_inode, put_super, show_options) - registers FUSE filesystem o fuse_i.h - private header file Requirements ============ The most important difference between orinary filesystems and FUSE is the fact, that the filesystem data/metadata is provided by a userspace process run with the privileges of the mount "owner" instead of the kernel, or some remote entity usually running with elevated privileges. The security implication of this is that a non-privileged user must not be able to use this capability to compromise the system. Obvious requirements arising from this are: - mount owner should not be able to get elevated privileges with the help of the mounted filesystem - mount owner should not be able to induce undesired behavior in other users' or the super user's processes - mount owner should not get illegitimate access to information from other users' and the super user's processes These are currently ensured with the following constraints: 1) mount is only allowed to directory or file which the mount owner can modify without limitation (write access + no sticky bit for directories) 2) nosuid,nodev mount options are forced 3) any process running with fsuid different from the owner is denied all access to the filesystem 1) and 2) are ensured by the "fusermount" mount utility which is a setuid root application doing the actual mount operation. 3) is ensured by a check in the permission() method in kernel I started thinking about doing 3) in a different way because Christoph H. made a big deal out of it, saying that FUSE is unacceptable into mainline in this form. The suggested use of private namespaces would be OK, but in their current form have many limitations that make their use impractical (as discussed in this thread). Suggested improvements that would address these limitations: - implement shared subtrees - allow a process to join an existing namespace (make namespaces first-class objects) - implement the namespace creation/joining in a PAM module With all that in place the check of owner against current->fsuid may be removed from the FUSE kernel module, without compromising the security requirements. Suid programs still interesting questions, since they get access even to the private namespace causing some information leak (exact order/timing of filesystem operations performed), giving some ptrace-like capabilities to unprivileged users. BTW this problem is not strictly limited to the namespace approach, since suid programs setting fsuid and accessing users' files will succeed with the current approach too. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-09 14:10:26 -06:00
/** Time in jiffies until the file attributes are valid */
unsigned long i_time;
};
/** FUSE specific file data */
struct fuse_file {
/** Request reserved for flush and release */
struct fuse_req *release_req;
/** File handle used by userspace */
u64 fh;
};
/** One input argument of a request */
struct fuse_in_arg {
unsigned size;
const void *value;
};
/** The request input */
struct fuse_in {
/** The request header */
struct fuse_in_header h;
/** True if the data for the last argument is in req->pages */
unsigned argpages:1;
/** Number of arguments */
unsigned numargs;
/** Array of arguments */
struct fuse_in_arg args[3];
};
/** One output argument of a request */
struct fuse_arg {
unsigned size;
void *value;
};
/** The request output */
struct fuse_out {
/** Header returned from userspace */
struct fuse_out_header h;
/** Last argument is variable length (can be shorter than
arg->size) */
unsigned argvar:1;
/** Last argument is a list of pages to copy data to */
unsigned argpages:1;
/** Zero partially or not copied pages */
unsigned page_zeroing:1;
/** Number or arguments */
unsigned numargs;
/** Array of arguments */
struct fuse_arg args[3];
};
/**
* A request to the client
*/
struct fuse_req {
/** This can be on either unused_list, pending or processing
lists in fuse_conn */
struct list_head list;
/** Entry on the background list */
struct list_head bg_entry;
/** refcount */
atomic_t count;
/** True if the request has reply */
unsigned isreply:1;
/** The request is preallocated */
unsigned preallocated:1;
/** The request was interrupted */
unsigned interrupted:1;
/** Request is sent in the background */
unsigned background:1;
/** Data is being copied to/from the request */
unsigned locked:1;
/** Request has been sent to userspace */
unsigned sent:1;
/** The request is finished */
unsigned finished:1;
/** The request input */
struct fuse_in in;
/** The request output */
struct fuse_out out;
/** Used to wake up the task waiting for completion of request*/
wait_queue_head_t waitq;
/** Data for asynchronous requests */
union {
struct fuse_forget_in forget_in;
struct fuse_release_in release_in;
struct fuse_init_in init_in;
struct fuse_init_out init_out;
} misc;
/** page vector */
struct page *pages[FUSE_MAX_PAGES_PER_REQ];
/** number of pages in vector */
unsigned num_pages;
/** offset of data on first page */
unsigned page_offset;
/** Inode used in the request */
struct inode *inode;
/** Second inode used in the request (or NULL) */
struct inode *inode2;
/** File used in the request (or NULL) */
struct file *file;
};
[PATCH] FUSE - core This patch adds FUSE core. This contains the following files: o inode.c - superblock operations (alloc_inode, destroy_inode, read_inode, clear_inode, put_super, show_options) - registers FUSE filesystem o fuse_i.h - private header file Requirements ============ The most important difference between orinary filesystems and FUSE is the fact, that the filesystem data/metadata is provided by a userspace process run with the privileges of the mount "owner" instead of the kernel, or some remote entity usually running with elevated privileges. The security implication of this is that a non-privileged user must not be able to use this capability to compromise the system. Obvious requirements arising from this are: - mount owner should not be able to get elevated privileges with the help of the mounted filesystem - mount owner should not be able to induce undesired behavior in other users' or the super user's processes - mount owner should not get illegitimate access to information from other users' and the super user's processes These are currently ensured with the following constraints: 1) mount is only allowed to directory or file which the mount owner can modify without limitation (write access + no sticky bit for directories) 2) nosuid,nodev mount options are forced 3) any process running with fsuid different from the owner is denied all access to the filesystem 1) and 2) are ensured by the "fusermount" mount utility which is a setuid root application doing the actual mount operation. 3) is ensured by a check in the permission() method in kernel I started thinking about doing 3) in a different way because Christoph H. made a big deal out of it, saying that FUSE is unacceptable into mainline in this form. The suggested use of private namespaces would be OK, but in their current form have many limitations that make their use impractical (as discussed in this thread). Suggested improvements that would address these limitations: - implement shared subtrees - allow a process to join an existing namespace (make namespaces first-class objects) - implement the namespace creation/joining in a PAM module With all that in place the check of owner against current->fsuid may be removed from the FUSE kernel module, without compromising the security requirements. Suid programs still interesting questions, since they get access even to the private namespace causing some information leak (exact order/timing of filesystem operations performed), giving some ptrace-like capabilities to unprivileged users. BTW this problem is not strictly limited to the namespace approach, since suid programs setting fsuid and accessing users' files will succeed with the current approach too. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-09 14:10:26 -06:00
/**
* A Fuse connection.
*
* This structure is created, when the filesystem is mounted, and is
* destroyed, when the client device is closed and the filesystem is
* unmounted.
*/
struct fuse_conn {
/** Reference count */
int count;
[PATCH] FUSE - core This patch adds FUSE core. This contains the following files: o inode.c - superblock operations (alloc_inode, destroy_inode, read_inode, clear_inode, put_super, show_options) - registers FUSE filesystem o fuse_i.h - private header file Requirements ============ The most important difference between orinary filesystems and FUSE is the fact, that the filesystem data/metadata is provided by a userspace process run with the privileges of the mount "owner" instead of the kernel, or some remote entity usually running with elevated privileges. The security implication of this is that a non-privileged user must not be able to use this capability to compromise the system. Obvious requirements arising from this are: - mount owner should not be able to get elevated privileges with the help of the mounted filesystem - mount owner should not be able to induce undesired behavior in other users' or the super user's processes - mount owner should not get illegitimate access to information from other users' and the super user's processes These are currently ensured with the following constraints: 1) mount is only allowed to directory or file which the mount owner can modify without limitation (write access + no sticky bit for directories) 2) nosuid,nodev mount options are forced 3) any process running with fsuid different from the owner is denied all access to the filesystem 1) and 2) are ensured by the "fusermount" mount utility which is a setuid root application doing the actual mount operation. 3) is ensured by a check in the permission() method in kernel I started thinking about doing 3) in a different way because Christoph H. made a big deal out of it, saying that FUSE is unacceptable into mainline in this form. The suggested use of private namespaces would be OK, but in their current form have many limitations that make their use impractical (as discussed in this thread). Suggested improvements that would address these limitations: - implement shared subtrees - allow a process to join an existing namespace (make namespaces first-class objects) - implement the namespace creation/joining in a PAM module With all that in place the check of owner against current->fsuid may be removed from the FUSE kernel module, without compromising the security requirements. Suid programs still interesting questions, since they get access even to the private namespace causing some information leak (exact order/timing of filesystem operations performed), giving some ptrace-like capabilities to unprivileged users. BTW this problem is not strictly limited to the namespace approach, since suid programs setting fsuid and accessing users' files will succeed with the current approach too. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-09 14:10:26 -06:00
/** The user id for this mount */
uid_t user_id;
/** The group id for this mount */
gid_t group_id;
/** The fuse mount flags for this mount */
unsigned flags;
/** Maximum read size */
unsigned max_read;
/** Maximum write size */
unsigned max_write;
/** Readers of the connection are waiting on this */
wait_queue_head_t waitq;
/** The list of pending requests */
struct list_head pending;
/** The list of requests being processed */
struct list_head processing;
/** Requests put in the background (RELEASE or any other
interrupted request) */
struct list_head background;
/** Controls the maximum number of outstanding requests */
struct semaphore outstanding_sem;
/** This counts the number of outstanding requests if
outstanding_sem would go negative */
unsigned outstanding_debt;
/** RW semaphore for exclusion with fuse_put_super() */
struct rw_semaphore sbput_sem;
/** The list of unused requests */
struct list_head unused_list;
/** The next unique request id */
u64 reqctr;
/** Mount is active */
unsigned mounted : 1;
/** Connection established */
unsigned connected : 1;
/** Connection failed (version mismatch) */
unsigned conn_error : 1;
/** Is fsync not implemented by fs? */
unsigned no_fsync : 1;
/** Is fsyncdir not implemented by fs? */
unsigned no_fsyncdir : 1;
/** Is flush not implemented by fs? */
unsigned no_flush : 1;
/** Is setxattr not implemented by fs? */
unsigned no_setxattr : 1;
/** Is getxattr not implemented by fs? */
unsigned no_getxattr : 1;
/** Is listxattr not implemented by fs? */
unsigned no_listxattr : 1;
/** Is removexattr not implemented by fs? */
unsigned no_removexattr : 1;
/** Is access not implemented by fs? */
unsigned no_access : 1;
/** Is create not implemented by fs? */
unsigned no_create : 1;
/** Negotiated minor version */
unsigned minor;
[PATCH] FUSE - core This patch adds FUSE core. This contains the following files: o inode.c - superblock operations (alloc_inode, destroy_inode, read_inode, clear_inode, put_super, show_options) - registers FUSE filesystem o fuse_i.h - private header file Requirements ============ The most important difference between orinary filesystems and FUSE is the fact, that the filesystem data/metadata is provided by a userspace process run with the privileges of the mount "owner" instead of the kernel, or some remote entity usually running with elevated privileges. The security implication of this is that a non-privileged user must not be able to use this capability to compromise the system. Obvious requirements arising from this are: - mount owner should not be able to get elevated privileges with the help of the mounted filesystem - mount owner should not be able to induce undesired behavior in other users' or the super user's processes - mount owner should not get illegitimate access to information from other users' and the super user's processes These are currently ensured with the following constraints: 1) mount is only allowed to directory or file which the mount owner can modify without limitation (write access + no sticky bit for directories) 2) nosuid,nodev mount options are forced 3) any process running with fsuid different from the owner is denied all access to the filesystem 1) and 2) are ensured by the "fusermount" mount utility which is a setuid root application doing the actual mount operation. 3) is ensured by a check in the permission() method in kernel I started thinking about doing 3) in a different way because Christoph H. made a big deal out of it, saying that FUSE is unacceptable into mainline in this form. The suggested use of private namespaces would be OK, but in their current form have many limitations that make their use impractical (as discussed in this thread). Suggested improvements that would address these limitations: - implement shared subtrees - allow a process to join an existing namespace (make namespaces first-class objects) - implement the namespace creation/joining in a PAM module With all that in place the check of owner against current->fsuid may be removed from the FUSE kernel module, without compromising the security requirements. Suid programs still interesting questions, since they get access even to the private namespace causing some information leak (exact order/timing of filesystem operations performed), giving some ptrace-like capabilities to unprivileged users. BTW this problem is not strictly limited to the namespace approach, since suid programs setting fsuid and accessing users' files will succeed with the current approach too. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-09 14:10:26 -06:00
/** Backing dev info */
struct backing_dev_info bdi;
};
static inline struct fuse_conn **get_fuse_conn_super_p(struct super_block *sb)
{
return (struct fuse_conn **) &sb->s_fs_info;
}
static inline struct fuse_conn *get_fuse_conn_super(struct super_block *sb)
{
return *get_fuse_conn_super_p(sb);
}
static inline struct fuse_conn *get_fuse_conn(struct inode *inode)
{
return get_fuse_conn_super(inode->i_sb);
}
static inline struct fuse_inode *get_fuse_inode(struct inode *inode)
{
return container_of(inode, struct fuse_inode, inode);
}
static inline u64 get_node_id(struct inode *inode)
{
return get_fuse_inode(inode)->nodeid;
}
/** Device operations */
extern struct file_operations fuse_dev_operations;
[PATCH] FUSE - core This patch adds FUSE core. This contains the following files: o inode.c - superblock operations (alloc_inode, destroy_inode, read_inode, clear_inode, put_super, show_options) - registers FUSE filesystem o fuse_i.h - private header file Requirements ============ The most important difference between orinary filesystems and FUSE is the fact, that the filesystem data/metadata is provided by a userspace process run with the privileges of the mount "owner" instead of the kernel, or some remote entity usually running with elevated privileges. The security implication of this is that a non-privileged user must not be able to use this capability to compromise the system. Obvious requirements arising from this are: - mount owner should not be able to get elevated privileges with the help of the mounted filesystem - mount owner should not be able to induce undesired behavior in other users' or the super user's processes - mount owner should not get illegitimate access to information from other users' and the super user's processes These are currently ensured with the following constraints: 1) mount is only allowed to directory or file which the mount owner can modify without limitation (write access + no sticky bit for directories) 2) nosuid,nodev mount options are forced 3) any process running with fsuid different from the owner is denied all access to the filesystem 1) and 2) are ensured by the "fusermount" mount utility which is a setuid root application doing the actual mount operation. 3) is ensured by a check in the permission() method in kernel I started thinking about doing 3) in a different way because Christoph H. made a big deal out of it, saying that FUSE is unacceptable into mainline in this form. The suggested use of private namespaces would be OK, but in their current form have many limitations that make their use impractical (as discussed in this thread). Suggested improvements that would address these limitations: - implement shared subtrees - allow a process to join an existing namespace (make namespaces first-class objects) - implement the namespace creation/joining in a PAM module With all that in place the check of owner against current->fsuid may be removed from the FUSE kernel module, without compromising the security requirements. Suid programs still interesting questions, since they get access even to the private namespace causing some information leak (exact order/timing of filesystem operations performed), giving some ptrace-like capabilities to unprivileged users. BTW this problem is not strictly limited to the namespace approach, since suid programs setting fsuid and accessing users' files will succeed with the current approach too. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-09 14:10:26 -06:00
/**
* This is the single global spinlock which protects FUSE's structures
*
* The following data is protected by this lock:
*
* - the private_data field of the device file
[PATCH] FUSE - core This patch adds FUSE core. This contains the following files: o inode.c - superblock operations (alloc_inode, destroy_inode, read_inode, clear_inode, put_super, show_options) - registers FUSE filesystem o fuse_i.h - private header file Requirements ============ The most important difference between orinary filesystems and FUSE is the fact, that the filesystem data/metadata is provided by a userspace process run with the privileges of the mount "owner" instead of the kernel, or some remote entity usually running with elevated privileges. The security implication of this is that a non-privileged user must not be able to use this capability to compromise the system. Obvious requirements arising from this are: - mount owner should not be able to get elevated privileges with the help of the mounted filesystem - mount owner should not be able to induce undesired behavior in other users' or the super user's processes - mount owner should not get illegitimate access to information from other users' and the super user's processes These are currently ensured with the following constraints: 1) mount is only allowed to directory or file which the mount owner can modify without limitation (write access + no sticky bit for directories) 2) nosuid,nodev mount options are forced 3) any process running with fsuid different from the owner is denied all access to the filesystem 1) and 2) are ensured by the "fusermount" mount utility which is a setuid root application doing the actual mount operation. 3) is ensured by a check in the permission() method in kernel I started thinking about doing 3) in a different way because Christoph H. made a big deal out of it, saying that FUSE is unacceptable into mainline in this form. The suggested use of private namespaces would be OK, but in their current form have many limitations that make their use impractical (as discussed in this thread). Suggested improvements that would address these limitations: - implement shared subtrees - allow a process to join an existing namespace (make namespaces first-class objects) - implement the namespace creation/joining in a PAM module With all that in place the check of owner against current->fsuid may be removed from the FUSE kernel module, without compromising the security requirements. Suid programs still interesting questions, since they get access even to the private namespace causing some information leak (exact order/timing of filesystem operations performed), giving some ptrace-like capabilities to unprivileged users. BTW this problem is not strictly limited to the namespace approach, since suid programs setting fsuid and accessing users' files will succeed with the current approach too. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-09 14:10:26 -06:00
* - the s_fs_info field of the super block
* - unused_list, pending, processing lists in fuse_conn
* - background list in fuse_conn
* - the unique request ID counter reqctr in fuse_conn
[PATCH] FUSE - core This patch adds FUSE core. This contains the following files: o inode.c - superblock operations (alloc_inode, destroy_inode, read_inode, clear_inode, put_super, show_options) - registers FUSE filesystem o fuse_i.h - private header file Requirements ============ The most important difference between orinary filesystems and FUSE is the fact, that the filesystem data/metadata is provided by a userspace process run with the privileges of the mount "owner" instead of the kernel, or some remote entity usually running with elevated privileges. The security implication of this is that a non-privileged user must not be able to use this capability to compromise the system. Obvious requirements arising from this are: - mount owner should not be able to get elevated privileges with the help of the mounted filesystem - mount owner should not be able to induce undesired behavior in other users' or the super user's processes - mount owner should not get illegitimate access to information from other users' and the super user's processes These are currently ensured with the following constraints: 1) mount is only allowed to directory or file which the mount owner can modify without limitation (write access + no sticky bit for directories) 2) nosuid,nodev mount options are forced 3) any process running with fsuid different from the owner is denied all access to the filesystem 1) and 2) are ensured by the "fusermount" mount utility which is a setuid root application doing the actual mount operation. 3) is ensured by a check in the permission() method in kernel I started thinking about doing 3) in a different way because Christoph H. made a big deal out of it, saying that FUSE is unacceptable into mainline in this form. The suggested use of private namespaces would be OK, but in their current form have many limitations that make their use impractical (as discussed in this thread). Suggested improvements that would address these limitations: - implement shared subtrees - allow a process to join an existing namespace (make namespaces first-class objects) - implement the namespace creation/joining in a PAM module With all that in place the check of owner against current->fsuid may be removed from the FUSE kernel module, without compromising the security requirements. Suid programs still interesting questions, since they get access even to the private namespace causing some information leak (exact order/timing of filesystem operations performed), giving some ptrace-like capabilities to unprivileged users. BTW this problem is not strictly limited to the namespace approach, since suid programs setting fsuid and accessing users' files will succeed with the current approach too. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-09 14:10:26 -06:00
* - the sb (super_block) field in fuse_conn
* - the file (device file) field in fuse_conn
[PATCH] FUSE - core This patch adds FUSE core. This contains the following files: o inode.c - superblock operations (alloc_inode, destroy_inode, read_inode, clear_inode, put_super, show_options) - registers FUSE filesystem o fuse_i.h - private header file Requirements ============ The most important difference between orinary filesystems and FUSE is the fact, that the filesystem data/metadata is provided by a userspace process run with the privileges of the mount "owner" instead of the kernel, or some remote entity usually running with elevated privileges. The security implication of this is that a non-privileged user must not be able to use this capability to compromise the system. Obvious requirements arising from this are: - mount owner should not be able to get elevated privileges with the help of the mounted filesystem - mount owner should not be able to induce undesired behavior in other users' or the super user's processes - mount owner should not get illegitimate access to information from other users' and the super user's processes These are currently ensured with the following constraints: 1) mount is only allowed to directory or file which the mount owner can modify without limitation (write access + no sticky bit for directories) 2) nosuid,nodev mount options are forced 3) any process running with fsuid different from the owner is denied all access to the filesystem 1) and 2) are ensured by the "fusermount" mount utility which is a setuid root application doing the actual mount operation. 3) is ensured by a check in the permission() method in kernel I started thinking about doing 3) in a different way because Christoph H. made a big deal out of it, saying that FUSE is unacceptable into mainline in this form. The suggested use of private namespaces would be OK, but in their current form have many limitations that make their use impractical (as discussed in this thread). Suggested improvements that would address these limitations: - implement shared subtrees - allow a process to join an existing namespace (make namespaces first-class objects) - implement the namespace creation/joining in a PAM module With all that in place the check of owner against current->fsuid may be removed from the FUSE kernel module, without compromising the security requirements. Suid programs still interesting questions, since they get access even to the private namespace causing some information leak (exact order/timing of filesystem operations performed), giving some ptrace-like capabilities to unprivileged users. BTW this problem is not strictly limited to the namespace approach, since suid programs setting fsuid and accessing users' files will succeed with the current approach too. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-09 14:10:26 -06:00
*/
extern spinlock_t fuse_lock;
/**
* Get a filled in inode
*/
struct inode *fuse_iget(struct super_block *sb, unsigned long nodeid,
int generation, struct fuse_attr *attr);
/**
* Send FORGET command
*/
void fuse_send_forget(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req,
unsigned long nodeid, u64 nlookup);
/**
* Send READ or READDIR request
*/
size_t fuse_send_read_common(struct fuse_req *req, struct file *file,
struct inode *inode, loff_t pos, size_t count,
int isdir);
/**
* Send OPEN or OPENDIR request
*/
int fuse_open_common(struct inode *inode, struct file *file, int isdir);
struct fuse_file *fuse_file_alloc(void);
void fuse_file_free(struct fuse_file *ff);
void fuse_finish_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file,
struct fuse_file *ff, struct fuse_open_out *outarg);
/**
* Send a RELEASE request
*/
void fuse_send_release(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_file *ff,
u64 nodeid, struct inode *inode, int flags, int isdir);
/**
* Send RELEASE or RELEASEDIR request
*/
int fuse_release_common(struct inode *inode, struct file *file, int isdir);
/**
* Send FSYNC or FSYNCDIR request
*/
int fuse_fsync_common(struct file *file, struct dentry *de, int datasync,
int isdir);
/**
* Initialize file operations on a regular file
*/
void fuse_init_file_inode(struct inode *inode);
/**
* Initialize inode operations on regular files and special files
*/
void fuse_init_common(struct inode *inode);
/**
* Initialize inode and file operations on a directory
*/
void fuse_init_dir(struct inode *inode);
/**
* Initialize inode operations on a symlink
*/
void fuse_init_symlink(struct inode *inode);
/**
* Change attributes of an inode
*/
void fuse_change_attributes(struct inode *inode, struct fuse_attr *attr);
[PATCH] FUSE - core This patch adds FUSE core. This contains the following files: o inode.c - superblock operations (alloc_inode, destroy_inode, read_inode, clear_inode, put_super, show_options) - registers FUSE filesystem o fuse_i.h - private header file Requirements ============ The most important difference between orinary filesystems and FUSE is the fact, that the filesystem data/metadata is provided by a userspace process run with the privileges of the mount "owner" instead of the kernel, or some remote entity usually running with elevated privileges. The security implication of this is that a non-privileged user must not be able to use this capability to compromise the system. Obvious requirements arising from this are: - mount owner should not be able to get elevated privileges with the help of the mounted filesystem - mount owner should not be able to induce undesired behavior in other users' or the super user's processes - mount owner should not get illegitimate access to information from other users' and the super user's processes These are currently ensured with the following constraints: 1) mount is only allowed to directory or file which the mount owner can modify without limitation (write access + no sticky bit for directories) 2) nosuid,nodev mount options are forced 3) any process running with fsuid different from the owner is denied all access to the filesystem 1) and 2) are ensured by the "fusermount" mount utility which is a setuid root application doing the actual mount operation. 3) is ensured by a check in the permission() method in kernel I started thinking about doing 3) in a different way because Christoph H. made a big deal out of it, saying that FUSE is unacceptable into mainline in this form. The suggested use of private namespaces would be OK, but in their current form have many limitations that make their use impractical (as discussed in this thread). Suggested improvements that would address these limitations: - implement shared subtrees - allow a process to join an existing namespace (make namespaces first-class objects) - implement the namespace creation/joining in a PAM module With all that in place the check of owner against current->fsuid may be removed from the FUSE kernel module, without compromising the security requirements. Suid programs still interesting questions, since they get access even to the private namespace causing some information leak (exact order/timing of filesystem operations performed), giving some ptrace-like capabilities to unprivileged users. BTW this problem is not strictly limited to the namespace approach, since suid programs setting fsuid and accessing users' files will succeed with the current approach too. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-09 14:10:26 -06:00
/**
* Check if the connection can be released, and if yes, then free the
* connection structure
*/
void fuse_release_conn(struct fuse_conn *fc);
/**
* Initialize the client device
*/
int fuse_dev_init(void);
/**
* Cleanup the client device
*/
void fuse_dev_cleanup(void);
/**
* Allocate a request
*/
struct fuse_req *fuse_request_alloc(void);
/**
* Free a request
*/
void fuse_request_free(struct fuse_req *req);
/**
* Reinitialize a request, the preallocated flag is left unmodified
*/
void fuse_reset_request(struct fuse_req *req);
/**
* Reserve a preallocated request
*/
struct fuse_req *fuse_get_request(struct fuse_conn *fc);
/**
* Decrement reference count of a request. If count goes to zero put
* on unused list (preallocated) or free request (not preallocated).
*/
void fuse_put_request(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req);
/**
* Send a request (synchronous)
*/
void request_send(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req);
/**
* Send a request with no reply
*/
void request_send_noreply(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req);
/**
* Send a request in the background
*/
void request_send_background(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req);
/**
* Release inodes and file associated with background request
*/
void fuse_release_background(struct fuse_req *req);
/**
* Get the attributes of a file
*/
int fuse_do_getattr(struct inode *inode);
/**
* Invalidate inode attributes
*/
void fuse_invalidate_attr(struct inode *inode);
/**
* Send the INIT message
*/
void fuse_send_init(struct fuse_conn *fc);