Re: [pseudo] [PATCH 0/3] closefrom/close_range: protect every pseudo fd, then drop one

On Wed, 2026-07-29 at 05:08 +0000, Babanpreet Singh wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-07-28 at 16:59 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > I think the missing piece is this:
> >=20
> > - if (op !=3D OP_CHROOT && op !=3D OP_CHDIR && op !=3D OP_CLOSE && op !=
=3D OP_CLOSEFROM && op !=3D OP_DUP
> > + if (op !=3D OP_CHROOT && op !=3D OP_CHDIR && op !=3D OP_CLOSE && op !=
=3D OP_CLOSEFROM && op !=3D OP_CLOSE_RANGE && op !=3D OP_DUP
>=20
> Sorry for the breakage, and thanks for chasing it down.
>=20
> I can reproduce it both ways on master-next at 6d65d74, with a probe that
> opens an fd and calls close_range(fd, ~0U, 0):
>=20
> =C2=A0 no PSEUDO_*_PATHS set=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 OK
> =C2=A0 PSEUDO_IGNORE_PATHS covering the fd's path=C2=A0=C2=A0 SIGSEGV
> =C2=A0 PSEUDO_INCLUDE_PATHS set, path not in it=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 S=
IGSEGV
> =C2=A0 same env, closefrom() instead=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 OK
> =C2=A0 all of the above, plus your line=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 OK
>=20
> For OP_CLOSE_RANGE the path comes from fd_path(lowfd), the ignore check
> hits it, and pseudo_client_op() returns early with result still 0, which
> close_range.c then dereferences.
>=20
> Two things before I respin. Do you want the three fd-protect patches
> resent, or will you carry the master-next commits since you have already
> resolved the conflicts? And the ignore-path line: fold it into the
> close_range patch with a Suggested-by, or keep it as your own commit ahea=
d
> of it? Either works for me.

You can fold the above piece in with a suggested by, it doesn't make
sense in a commit on its own. I can take the other fd-protect patches
if you're ok with that change, I need to update the commit messages.

Whilst most builds are testing cleanly, we are seeing these two
failures:

https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/35/builds/4403
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/23/builds/4466

which look like a pseudo problem, and that is with the current pseudo
master-next. I think there is still some issue remaining somewhere
unfortunately. I'm afraid I don't know what it is.

Cheers,

Richard