[llvm-dev] Experiment on how to improve our temporary file handing.
Konstantin Belousov via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Nov 14 00:39:24 PST 2017
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 03:29:32PM -0800, Rafael Avila de Espindola wrote:
> Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:46:32PM -0800, Davide Italiano wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola
> >> <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Davide Italiano <davide.italiano at gmail.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >>> I couldn't find any support for this on FreeBSD.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> AFAIK FreeBSD supports some variant of /proc that should map Linux
> >> >> (although the mapping isn't 1:1).
> >> >> Does it lack support for this? Thanks for looking into this, BTW!
> >> >
> >> > O_TMPFILE is the main thing that seems to be missing.
> >> >
> >> It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask FreeBSD to implement this (at
> >> least for ufs/zfs), maybe Ed/Kostik have thoughts about it.
> > Can you please explain, how exactly O_TMPFILE functionality you asking
> > for relates to the /proc ? Do you want to re-link O_TMPFILE-opened
> > inodes into named files ?
> The relation to proc seems to be a linux peculiarity.
> What we want in the end is to implement "-o foo" in lld with the
> following guarantees:
> 1 foo is only created with the final content.
> 2 We don't leave a temporary file behind on a power failure.
> 3 Less critical but nice: if foo already exists, it is replaced
> Using mkstemp + rename we get 1 and 3.
> On linux we can use O_TMPFILE, but the only way for a non privileged
> process to then give a name to that fd is:
> linkat(AT_FDCWD, "/proc/self/fd/<num>", AT_FDCWD, "destination",
> which has two problem: It requires proc to be mounted and it is not
> atomic if the destination already exists.
This is quite different request from O_TMPFILE. The tmpfile can be
implemented in a day or two for UFS. The ability to enter the inode
referenced by a file descriptor, into the filesystem namespace at a
given location, was proposed several times and rejected, I believe. The
cause is that it potentially allows to gain additional access rights.
Imagine that a process obtained a file descriptor only opened for read,
e.g. by passing over unix domain socket. If it is possible to link
its inode, you can re-open it limited by access permissions on the
inode. Inode may have rw rights, but its current containing directory
disallowing the walk.
This is especially important for capabilities-based sandbox environments,
> A system with O_TMPFILE which allows some form of renameat to
> atomically give that fd a name would be perfect.
I believe that #2 is not that critical.
More information about the llvm-dev