blob: 0026a7b72a7fc3d344223038c0130c39f125622e [file] [log] [blame]
Andrew Geissler595f6302022-01-24 19:11:47 +00001From 5d4c6b2f4b88b69b31f967371d2a6136c65dc3fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Brad Bishop19323692019-04-05 15:28:33 -04002From: Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@gmail.com>
3Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:33:30 -0700
William A. Kennington IIIac69b482021-06-02 12:28:27 -07004Subject: [PATCH] don't pass AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag to faccessat()
Brad Bishop19323692019-04-05 15:28:33 -04005
6Avoid using AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag. It doesn't seem like the right
7thing to do and it's not portable (not supported by musl). See:
8
9 http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2014-September/003610.html
10 http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2015/02/05/2
11
12Note that laccess() is never passing AT_EACCESS so a lot of the
13discussion in the links above doesn't apply. Note also that
14(currently) all systemd callers of laccess() pass mode as F_OK, so
15only check for existence of a file, not access permissions.
16Therefore, in this case, the only distiction between faccessat()
17with (flag == 0) and (flag == AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) is the behaviour
18for broken symlinks; laccess() on a broken symlink will succeed with
19(flag == AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) and fail (flag == 0).
20
21The laccess() macros was added to systemd some time ago and it's not
22clear if or why it needs to return success for broken symlinks. Maybe
23just historical and not actually necessary or desired behaviour?
24
25Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [musl specific]
26
27Signed-off-by: Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@gmail.com>
William A. Kennington IIIac69b482021-06-02 12:28:27 -070028
Brad Bishop19323692019-04-05 15:28:33 -040029---
William A. Kennington IIIac69b482021-06-02 12:28:27 -070030 src/basic/fs-util.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
Brad Bishop19323692019-04-05 15:28:33 -040031 src/shared/base-filesystem.c | 6 +++---
William A. Kennington IIIac69b482021-06-02 12:28:27 -070032 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Brad Bishop19323692019-04-05 15:28:33 -040033
Andrew Geisslerd1e89492021-02-12 15:35:20 -060034--- a/src/basic/fs-util.h
35+++ b/src/basic/fs-util.h
Andrew Geissler7e0e3c02022-02-25 20:34:39 +000036@@ -46,8 +46,27 @@ int futimens_opath(int fd, const struct
Brad Bishop19323692019-04-05 15:28:33 -040037 int fd_warn_permissions(const char *path, int fd);
Andrew Geissler635e0e42020-08-21 15:58:33 -050038 int stat_warn_permissions(const char *path, const struct stat *st);
Brad Bishop19323692019-04-05 15:28:33 -040039
Brad Bishop19323692019-04-05 15:28:33 -040040+/*
41+ Avoid using AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag. It doesn't seem like the right thing to
42+ do and it's not portable (not supported by musl). See:
43+
44+ http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2014-September/003610.html
45+ http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2015/02/05/2
46+
47+ Note that laccess() is never passing AT_EACCESS so a lot of the discussion in
48+ the links above doesn't apply. Note also that (currently) all systemd callers
49+ of laccess() pass mode as F_OK, so only check for existence of a file, not
50+ access permissions. Therefore, in this case, the only distiction between
51+ faccessat() with (flag == 0) and (flag == AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) is the
52+ behaviour for broken symlinks; laccess() on a broken symlink will succeed
53+ with (flag == AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) and fail (flag == 0).
54+
55+ The laccess() macros was added to systemd some time ago and it's not clear if
56+ or why it needs to return success for broken symlinks. Maybe just historical
57+ and not actually necessary or desired behaviour?
58+*/
Andrew Geissler7e0e3c02022-02-25 20:34:39 +000059 #define laccess(path, mode) \
60- RET_NERRNO(faccessat(AT_FDCWD, (path), (mode), AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW))
61+ RET_NERRNO(faccessat(AT_FDCWD, (path), (mode), 0))
Brad Bishop19323692019-04-05 15:28:33 -040062
63 int touch_file(const char *path, bool parents, usec_t stamp, uid_t uid, gid_t gid, mode_t mode);
64 int touch(const char *path);
Andrew Geisslerd1e89492021-02-12 15:35:20 -060065--- a/src/shared/base-filesystem.c
66+++ b/src/shared/base-filesystem.c
Andrew Geissler7e0e3c02022-02-25 20:34:39 +000067@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ int base_filesystem_create(const char *r
Brad Bishop19323692019-04-05 15:28:33 -040068 return log_error_errno(errno, "Failed to open root file system: %m");
69
Patrick Williams213cb262021-08-07 19:21:33 -050070 for (size_t i = 0; i < ELEMENTSOF(table); i++) {
Brad Bishop19323692019-04-05 15:28:33 -040071- if (faccessat(fd, table[i].dir, F_OK, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) >= 0)
72+ if (faccessat(fd, table[i].dir, F_OK, 0) >= 0)
73 continue;
74
75 if (table[i].target) {
Andrew Geissler7e0e3c02022-02-25 20:34:39 +000076@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ int base_filesystem_create(const char *r
Brad Bishop19323692019-04-05 15:28:33 -040077
78 /* check if one of the targets exists */
79 NULSTR_FOREACH(s, table[i].target) {
80- if (faccessat(fd, s, F_OK, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) < 0)
81+ if (faccessat(fd, s, F_OK, 0) < 0)
82 continue;
83
84 /* check if a specific file exists at the target path */
Andrew Geissler7e0e3c02022-02-25 20:34:39 +000085@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ int base_filesystem_create(const char *r
Brad Bishop19323692019-04-05 15:28:33 -040086 if (!p)
87 return log_oom();
88
89- if (faccessat(fd, p, F_OK, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) < 0)
90+ if (faccessat(fd, p, F_OK, 0) < 0)
91 continue;
92 }
93