Re: [PATCH] 9p: cap xattr max size to XATTR_SIZE_MAX

[Seth Forshee]

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 08:35:46AM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 03:19:58PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:35:07PM +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 4, 2024 1:42:43 PM CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> > > > We probably shouldn't ever get an xattr bigger than that, and the current check
> > > > of SSIZE_MAX is a bit too large.
> > > 
> > > Maybe, OTOH e.g. ACLs (dynamic size) are implemented by storing them as xattrs
> > > on 9p server as well, and this change somewhat expects server to run Linux as
> > > well. So maybe s/XATTR_SIZE_MAX/KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE/ might be more appropriate,
> > > considering that this patch is about fixing a potential kmalloc() warning?
> > > 
> > > Worth to mention in the commit log BTW what the issue was.
> > > 
> > > /Christian
> > 
> > So the error is somewhat specific to filesystem capabilities which also
> > live in the xattr apis but Seth is working to get rid of them in there.
> > 
> > They currently use a special api vfs_getxattr_alloc() which is an
> > in-kernel api that does a racy query-size+allocate-buffer+retrieve-data
> > dance.
> 
> Yes, the patches I've sent does use vfs_getxattr_alloc() for fscaps
> anymore.

Sorry, typo above. My patches do _not_ use vfs_getxattr_alloc() for
fscaps anymore.

> 
> > That api is used for fscaps, security labels, and other xattrs. And that
> > api doesn't do any size checks which probably should also be fixed now
> > that I write this.
> > 
> > @Seth?
> 
> I agree. I don't see any reason that vfs_getxattr_alloc() shouldn't just
> bail out with an error if the size of the xattr is >= XATTR_SIZE_MAX.