RE: [PATCH 5/9] hw/9pfs: Add a 'local' file system backend driver for Windows

[Shi, Guohuai]

Let's force on the security issue:

Firstly, this answer ( 
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32138524/is-there-a-windows-equivalent-of-openat
 ) is useless for QEMU.
It uses Windows native API NtCreateFile() and accesses files by Windows handle. 
But 9PFS is using Windows POSIX interface, handle can not be used in POSIX 
interface.
Actually, Windows provide similar APIs like 
GetFinalPathNameByHandle()/GetFileInformationByHandle().
It can also get file information by Windows handle.

Windows POSIX interface do not support NO_FOLLOW flags, that means, Windows 
POSIX open() always translate symbolic link.

So everything are finally point to one limitation: Windows POSIX interfaces do 
not support symbolic link and always translate link.

For the security reason, I think it is reasonable to disable symbolic link 
support on Windows host for 9PFS.
I can re-work this patch to adding a symbolic link check during path-walk 
operation and stop it when get a symbolic link.

Best Regards,
Guohuai

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>
> Sent: 2022年5月10日 22:35
> To: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com>
> Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Meng, Bin <Bin.Meng@windriver.com>; Bin Meng
> <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>; Shi, Guohuai <Guohuai.Shi@windriver.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] hw/9pfs: Add a 'local' file system backend driver for
> Windows
> 
> [Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]
> 
> On Tue, 10 May 2022 16:04:28 +0200
> Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Dienstag, 10. Mai 2022 15:40:06 CEST Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 May 2022 13:54:46 +0200
> > >
> > > Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dienstag, 10. Mai 2022 12:18:33 CEST Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > > > > On Dienstag, 10. Mai 2022 04:17:44 CEST Shi, Guohuai wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I tend to agree with Christian's remarks that this
> > > > > > > > > > patch is too big and that the choice of introducing
> > > > > > > > > > right away a new implementation of 9p-local for
> > > > > > > > > > windows hosts is too bold to start with. We need to
> > > > > > > > > > clearly understand what's diverging between windows
> > > > > > > > > > and linux in order to make such a decision. You should
> > > > > > > > > > first try to introduce the required abstractions to
> > > > > > > > > > cope with these differences, so that we can review.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here is the basic introductions of 9PFS for Windows 
> > > > > > > > > development:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Windows always returns -1 when try to call open() for a
> > > > > > > > > directory.
> > > > > > > > > Windows (actually MinGW library) only allows opendir()
> > > > > > > > > for a directory.
> > > > >
> > > > > That missing behaviour could be implemented in 9p-util-win.c,
> > > > > similar to the missing behaviours of mknodat() for macOS which
> > > > > did not support a bunch of things like creating a UNIX socket file and
> more:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/qemu/qemu/commit/055ab89327bab83f1bd07e9de07f
> > > > > 7628643d
> > > > > 3d8d> >
> > > > > > > > Does MinGW have dirfd() ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No.
> > > > > > > MinGW does not open any directory.
> > > > > > > Here is opendir() source code of MinGW:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/mirror/mingw-w64/blob/master/mingw-w64-cr
> > > > > > > t/misc/d
> > > > > > > iren
> > > > > > > t.
> > > > > > > c#L42
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So MinGW do not have a fd associated to a directory.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Windows does not support APIs like "*at" (openat(),
> > > > > > > > > renameat(),
> > > > > > > > > etc.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Like already suggested before on your previous RFC version, it
> > > > > is possible to use the same workaround as we are using for macOS
> > > > > hosts already (which
> > > > >
> > > > > was missing mknodat()):
> > > > >   pthread_fchdir_np(...)
> > > > >   mknod(...)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/hw/9pfs/9p-util-darwin.
> > > > > c#L84
> > > > >
> > > > > So on Windows it would be viable to:
> > > > >   chdir(...)
> > > > >   open(...)
> > > > >
> > > > > The same approach could be used for any missing *at() function
> > > > > for Windows.
> > > >
> > > > Problem though is that the chdir() functions on Windows all seem
> > > > to have process-wide effect, we would need to change the current
> > > > directory only for the current thread, because filesystem access
> > > > of 9p server is multi-threaded.
> > > >
> > > > Protecting the chdir(); foo(); calls by a process wide global
> > > > mutex isn't very appealing either. :/
> > >
> > > And it wouldn't be safe anyway because I'm pretty sure that the rest
> > > of the QEMU code assumes that the current directory is invariant, e.g.
> > > user could be very confused by 'drive_add file=./foo.img' not working.
> > >
> > > BTW duckduckgo gives:
> > >
> > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32138524/is-there-a-windows-equi
> > > valent-o
> > > f-openat
> > >
> > > So yes it seems to be technically possible to implement *at()
> > > functions on windows. This is the only way to avoid CVE-2016-9602 in
> > > the QEMU process.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > > Another option is to use the proxy backend : this offloads all fs
> > > accesses to an external process running virtfs-proxy-helper, that
> > > runs privileged and chroot() into the shared directory so that it
> > > can safely use path based syscalls.
> >
> > As a very last resort, maybe. But just for the other two guys to know 
> > upfront:
> > the proxy backend is very slow and not in good shape. There were plans
> > to deprecate the proxy backend therefore, as it's more or less dead.
> >
> 
> Yeah as mentioned before, the way to go now would be to come with a vhost-user
> implementation like virtiofsd. This would address all perf problems we have 
> with
> proxy since the client would directly talk to the external process. This 
> should
> also provide better perf than the local backend since it wouldn't have to do 
> do
> the "at*()"
> dance thanks to chroot().
> 
> > > > > > > > Ouch...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So 9PFS can not use any openat() for opening a sub file
> > > > > > > > > or directory in 9P
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mount
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > directory.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This commit use merge_fs_path() to build up full
> > > > > > > > > filename by string
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > concatenation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I know that may have a risk of security, but Windows
> > > > > > > > > does fully support POSIX
> > > > >
> > > > > You will not find anybody merging code that's inherently insecure.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > I understand from your various answers that symlinks
> > > > > > > > aren't currently supported by window's POSIX API. Is this 
> > > > > > > > forever ?
> > > > > > > > Google do mentions symlinks in windows 10. What's the
> > > > > > > > story there ? How do they behave ? How would they be
> > > > > > > > exposed to the client ? Be aware that, even if the client
> > > > > > > > cannot create symlinks, an existing symlink could be used to 
> > > > > > > > escape
> with rename().
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If the code "may have a risk of security" then it must be
> > > > > > > > fixed or avoided in some way before being merged upstream.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Other thing that comes to mind is that windows hosts
> > > > > > > > should maybe use the mapped or mapped-file security modes
> > > > > > > > since they emulate symlinks with a simple file hidden in
> > > > > > > > the VIRTFS_META_DIR directory.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Greg
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Windows native API support symbolic link file start from
> > > > > > > Windows
> > > > > > > Vista:
> > > > > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winbase/n
> > > > > > > f-winbas
> > > > > > > e-cr
> > > > > > > ea
> > > > > > > tes ymboliclinka
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I mean Windows POSIX APIs do not support symbolic link
> > > > > > > (MinGW use
> > > > > > > Win32
> > > > > > > POSIX APIs) So we can not create symbolic link by MinGW.
> > > > >
> > > > > A function with POSIX signature could be added to 9p-util-win.c
> > > > > which would call the native Windows function to create symlinks.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyway, there is another solution: re-work whole 9PFS code:
> > > > > > > not only 9p-local.c, but also every file in 9p driver.
> > > > > > > Replace every MinGW/POSIX APIs (e.g. open, lseek, read,
> > > > > > > write, close), by Windows Native APIs (e.g. open ->
> > > > > > > CreateFile, lseek -> SetFilePointer, read -> ReadFile, write
> > > > > > > -> WriteFile, close -> CloseHandle, etc.) Then 9P can use
> > > > > > > Windows symbolic link feature.
> > > > > > > However, I do think it is a good idea to replace everything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TYPO: it NOT is a good idea to replace everything.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right, that does not make sense. The way to go is adding and
> > > > > implementing missing system functions with POSIX signatures and
> > > > > POSIX behaviour for Windows. Not turning the entire code base
> > > > > upside down.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Christian Schoenebeck
> >
> >