From 91bb4f5c9c11464468e8d3fa4746d98d59997264 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andre McCurdy Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:33:30 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 17/19] don't pass AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag to faccessat() Avoid using AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag. It doesn't seem like the right thing to do and it's not portable (not supported by musl). See: http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2014-September/003610.html http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2015/02/05/2 Note that laccess() is never passing AT_EACCESS so a lot of the discussion in the links above doesn't apply. Note also that (currently) all systemd callers of laccess() pass mode as F_OK, so only check for existence of a file, not access permissions. Therefore, in this case, the only distiction between faccessat() with (flag == 0) and (flag == AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) is the behaviour for broken symlinks; laccess() on a broken symlink will succeed with (flag == AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) and fail (flag == 0). The laccess() macros was added to systemd some time ago and it's not clear if or why it needs to return success for broken symlinks. Maybe just historical and not actually necessary or desired behaviour? Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [musl specific] Signed-off-by: Andre McCurdy --- src/basic/fs-util.h | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++- src/shared/base-filesystem.c | 6 +++--- 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/basic/fs-util.h b/src/basic/fs-util.h index 28566773c..14b864cc5 100644 --- a/src/basic/fs-util.h +++ b/src/basic/fs-util.h @@ -32,7 +32,27 @@ int fchmod_opath(int fd, mode_t m); int fd_warn_permissions(const char *path, int fd); -#define laccess(path, mode) faccessat(AT_FDCWD, (path), (mode), AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) +/* + Avoid using AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag. It doesn't seem like the right thing to + do and it's not portable (not supported by musl). See: + + http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2014-September/003610.html + http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2015/02/05/2 + + Note that laccess() is never passing AT_EACCESS so a lot of the discussion in + the links above doesn't apply. Note also that (currently) all systemd callers + of laccess() pass mode as F_OK, so only check for existence of a file, not + access permissions. Therefore, in this case, the only distiction between + faccessat() with (flag == 0) and (flag == AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) is the + behaviour for broken symlinks; laccess() on a broken symlink will succeed + with (flag == AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) and fail (flag == 0). + + The laccess() macros was added to systemd some time ago and it's not clear if + or why it needs to return success for broken symlinks. Maybe just historical + and not actually necessary or desired behaviour? +*/ + +#define laccess(path, mode) faccessat(AT_FDCWD, (path), (mode), 0) int touch_file(const char *path, bool parents, usec_t stamp, uid_t uid, gid_t gid, mode_t mode); int touch(const char *path); diff --git a/src/shared/base-filesystem.c b/src/shared/base-filesystem.c index 89d7a7d59..34b4ad53a 100644 --- a/src/shared/base-filesystem.c +++ b/src/shared/base-filesystem.c @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ int base_filesystem_create(const char *root, uid_t uid, gid_t gid) { return log_error_errno(errno, "Failed to open root file system: %m"); for (i = 0; i < ELEMENTSOF(table); i ++) { - if (faccessat(fd, table[i].dir, F_OK, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) >= 0) + if (faccessat(fd, table[i].dir, F_OK, 0) >= 0) continue; if (table[i].target) { @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ int base_filesystem_create(const char *root, uid_t uid, gid_t gid) { /* check if one of the targets exists */ NULSTR_FOREACH(s, table[i].target) { - if (faccessat(fd, s, F_OK, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) < 0) + if (faccessat(fd, s, F_OK, 0) < 0) continue; /* check if a specific file exists at the target path */ @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ int base_filesystem_create(const char *root, uid_t uid, gid_t gid) { if (!p) return log_oom(); - if (faccessat(fd, p, F_OK, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) < 0) + if (faccessat(fd, p, F_OK, 0) < 0) continue; } -- 2.11.0