Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] fs: Fix use of incorrect flags with splice() on pipe from/to memfd

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] fs: Fix use of incorrect flags with splice() on pipe from/to memfd

[Christian Brauner]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 05:43:52PM +0200, Jan Polensky wrote:
> Fix use of incorrect flags when using splice() with pipe ends and
> memfd secret. Ensure that pipe and memfd file descriptors are properly
> recognized and handled to prevent unintended EACCES errors in scenarios
> where EBADF or EINVAL are expected.
> 
> This resolves failures in LTP's splice07 test case:
> 
>     ./ltp-bin/testcases/bin/splice07
>     [skip]
>     splice07.c:54: TFAIL: splice() on pipe read end -> memfd secret expected EBADF, EINVAL: EACCES (13)
>     [skip]
>     splice07.c:54: TFAIL: splice() on memfd secret -> pipe write end expected EBADF, EINVAL: EACCES (13)
>     [skip]
> 
> Fixes: cbe4134ea4bc ("fs: export anon_inode_make_secure_inode() and fix secretmem LSM bypass")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Polensky <japo@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  fs/anon_inodes.c   | 11 +++++++----
>  include/linux/fs.h |  2 +-
>  mm/secretmem.c     |  2 +-
>  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/anon_inodes.c b/fs/anon_inodes.c
> index 1d847a939f29..f4eade76273b 100644
> --- a/fs/anon_inodes.c
> +++ b/fs/anon_inodes.c
> @@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ static struct file_system_type anon_inode_fs_type = {
>   * @name:	[in]	Name of the class of the newfile (e.g., "secretmem")
>   * @context_inode:
>   *		[in]	Optional parent inode for security inheritance
> + * @secmem	[in]	Indicates wheather the inode should be threaded as secretmem
>   *
>   * The function ensures proper security initialization through the LSM hook
>   * security_inode_init_security_anon().
> @@ -111,7 +112,7 @@ static struct file_system_type anon_inode_fs_type = {
>   * Return:	Pointer to new inode on success, ERR_PTR on failure.
>   */
>  struct inode *anon_inode_make_secure_inode(struct super_block *sb, const char *name,
> -					   const struct inode *context_inode)
> +					   const struct inode *context_inode, bool secmem)
>  {
>  	struct inode *inode;
>  	int error;
> @@ -119,8 +120,10 @@ struct inode *anon_inode_make_secure_inode(struct super_block *sb, const char *n
>  	inode = alloc_anon_inode(sb);
>  	if (IS_ERR(inode))
>  		return inode;
> -	inode->i_flags &= ~S_PRIVATE;
> -	inode->i_op = &anon_inode_operations;
> +	if (!secmem) {
> +		inode->i_flags &= ~S_PRIVATE;
> +		inode->i_op = &anon_inode_operations;
> +	}

That hides secret memory inodes from LSMs which is the exact opposite of
what the original commit was there to fix. I'm pretty sure that the
EACCES comes from the LSM layer because the relevant refpolicy or
however that works hasn't been updated to allow secret memory files to
use splice().

This is a chicken-and-egg problem withy anything that strips S_PRIVATE
from things that were previously S_PRIVATE.

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] fs: Fix use of incorrect flags with splice() on pipe from/to memfd

[Jan Polensky]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 01:34:12PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 05:43:52PM +0200, Jan Polensky wrote:
> > Fix use of incorrect flags when using splice() with pipe ends and
[skip]
> > +	}
>
> That hides secret memory inodes from LSMs which is the exact opposite of
> what the original commit was there to fix. I'm pretty sure that the
> EACCES comes from the LSM layer because the relevant refpolicy or
> however that works hasn't been updated to allow secret memory files to
> use splice().
>
> This is a chicken-and-egg problem withy anything that strips S_PRIVATE
> from things that were previously S_PRIVATE.
Yes, agree. I've already send a fix to LTP.
Thank you for your reply.