[Virtio-fs] Current file handle status and open questions
Sergio Lopez
slp at redhat.com
Tue Mar 23 16:39:11 UTC 2021
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 06:09:58PM +0100, Max Reitz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As threatened in our last meeting, I’ve written this mail to give an
> overview on where we stand with regards to virtiofsd(-rs) using file
> handles.
>
> Technically, this should be a reply to the “Securint file handles”
> thread, but this mail is so long I think it’s better to split it off.
>
> There are multiple problems that somehow relate to file handles, the
> ones I’m aware of are:
>
> (A) We have a problem with too many FDs open. To solve it, we could
> attach a file handle to each node, then close the FD (as far as
> possible) and reopen it when needed from the file handle.
>
> (B) We want to allow the guest to use persistent file handles.
>
> (C) For live migration, the problem isn’t even clear yet, but it seems
> like we’ll want to translate nodes into their file handles and
> transmit those and open them again on the destination (at least on
> shared filesystems).
>
> Now every case has its own specific tricky bits:
>
> Case (A) is something that we’d really like to have by default, and it
> would need to work all the time during runtime. So the problem here is
> that we’d need CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, and we’d need it all the time, but
> we don’t want that. One interesting bit is that we don’t need these
> file handles to be persistent between virtiofsd invocations.
>
> For (B) we have the problem of needing to protect against a potentially
> malicious guest, i.e. that it must not be able to reference files
> outside the shared directory. (Perhaps except for cases where the file
> was once reachable, i.e. where a file handle was generated by the guest,
> then the file was moved outside of the shared directory, but remains
> accessible through the file handle.) Furthermore, file handles should
> really be persistent between virtiofsd invocations. On the positive
> side, it would be easier for us to require CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH for this
> case, because it really is optional. We could require users to give us
> that capability if they want file handles in the guest (and we find no
> way to avoid requiring that capability).
>
> (C) needs persistency between source and destination, but on the
> positive side, we only need to be able to open file handles during the
> in-migrate phase on the destination. So requiring CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH
> only during that phase might not be that big of a deal.
>
>
> (Ideally, we’d want all cases to work without CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, but
> as you can see, that requirement is weakened for cases (B) and
> especially (C).)
>
>
> As far as I’ve understood, (A) is the case that we want to focus on
> first, and the main problem there is that we need to open file handles
> without CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH.
>
> To do that, I at one point proposed a service process that has
> CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH and would open file handles for virtiofsd. But that
> probably won’t really be an improvement, because this process too would
> probably need to run in the container and so if we can’t give virtiofsd
> that capability, we can’t give it to that service process either.
>
> What Miklos proposed was to modify the kernel to allow processes to open
> file handles even if they don’t have CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH as long as
> those files are in the process’s scope. One way to implement this
> restriction (in a very restrictive manner) is to only allow opening file
> handles that the process has generated before, e.g. by appending a MAC
> to every file handle (generated with a process-specific key) and
> checking that when opening a handle. (You would request this MAC with a
> new AT_* flag passed to name_to_handle_at(). open_by_handle_at()
> recognizes it due to a special file handle type value.)
>
> (Process-specific key = stored in current->files, i.e. the files_struct.
> I’m not 100% sure what this is, but I guess this is the structure that
> keeps a process’s open file descriptors, and so should generally be
> unique to a process, or at least unique to a group of processes that
> share the same FDs.)
Does this mean that if we have, let's say, 3 virtiofsd instances each
one "remembering" (because there's a reference in the dentry cache of
the guest they are servicing) 10.000 files, the Host's kernel would
need to keep 30.000 entries holding the host_file+MAC information? Or
is there some kind of VFS trickery at play here that allows to do the
check without holding all that information?
Sergio.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/virtio-fs/attachments/20210323/b9392c3d/attachment.sig>
More information about the Virtio-fs
mailing list