[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zhefik0y.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:32:45 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: 39236@...bugs.gnu.org, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: coreutils cp mishandles error return from lchmod
* Rich Felker:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 04:08:26PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Rich Felker:
>>
>> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 03:34:18PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> >> * Rich Felker:
>> >>
>> >> > coreutils should be opting to use the system-provided lchmod, which is
>> >> > safe, and correctly handling error returns (silently treating
>> >> > EOPNOTSUPP as success) rather than as hard errors.
>> >>
>> >> glibc's lchmod always returns ENOSYS (except on Hurd). I don't know how
>> >> lchmod is used in coreutils, but I suspect it is not particularly
>> >> useful.
>> >
>> > When preserving permissions (cp -p, archive extraction, etc.), you
>> > want lchmod to work correctly just for the purpose of *not* following
>> > the link and thereby unwantedly changing the permissions of the link
>> > target. But, fchmodat with AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW works just as well and
>> > is standard, and that's really what coreutils should be using.
>>
>> I think you misread what I wrote: lchmod *always* returns ENOSYS. Even
>> if the file is not a symbolic link. Likewise, fchmodat with
>> AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW *always* returns ENOTSUP.
>
> Yes, I understood that. I was going into why there should be a real
> implementation, but didn't make it clear that that was what I was
> doing.
Ah, yes, there should be a real implementation if we can get full
lchmod/AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW behavior on file systems that support it. If
we can't, I'm not sure if there is a point to it.
>> The reason for this is that the kernel does not provide a suitable
>> system call to implement this, even though some file systems allow a
>> mode change for symbolic links. I think we can do better, although I
>> should note that each time we implement such emulation in userspace, it
>> comes back to bite us eventually.
>
> Emulations in userspace that are approximate, have race conditions,
> etc. are bad. Ones that are rigorous are good, though.
Is there a reason for the S_ISLNK check in the musl implementation?
With current kernels, chmod on the proc pseudo-file will not traverse
the symbolic link, but I have yet to check if this has always been the
case.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
