linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:47:18 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 03:54:10PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Huh, interesting.
>>
>> I was imagining that each of a server's peers (capability holders)
>> would have a fresh struct file, but maybe this wouldn't be needed at
>> all.  You'd still need a way to get replies to your request, but the
>> API could just as easily be:
>>
>> int send_to_capability(int dest, int source, const void *data, size_t len, ...);
>>
>> where dest would be the destination's fd and source would be whatever
>> receive queue I expect the response on.
>>
>> So maybe this is feasible.  It doesn't solve broadcasts, but dbus
>> unicast could easily layer over a facility like this and the context
>> switch problem would go away for unicast.
>>
>> Heck, I'd use it for my own proprietary stuff, too.  It would be way
>> easier than the absurd tangle of socketpairs I currently use.
>
> BTW, the main issue with AF_UNIX passing is that recepient isn't asleep
> awaiting for descriptors - they are thrown by sender at whoever's receiving
> and sit there until somebody gets around to picking them.
>
> _IF_ we had
> client: I want a desciptor <goes to sleep, interruptibly>
> kernel: assign it a sequence number
> server: sees request (including sequence number)
> server: give this fd to originator of request #N
> kernel: check if originator is still there, insert the damn thing into their
> descriptor table if they still are and return the obtained number
> or
> server: tell the originator of request #N to fuck off
> kernel: check if originator is still there and gleefully pass the "fuck off" if
> they still are
>
> we wouldn't have the in-flight state at all, and there goes the garbage
> collection shite.  With some elaboration, it could even carry the
> authentication traffic - "fuck off" might be "answer this challenge", with
> the next "I want a descriptor" carrying reply...

I wonder if we could get away with having the receiver pre-allocate
some placeholder fds and then have the kernel replace a placeholder
with a passed fd immediately when the fd is sent and enqueue *that* in
the cmsg data.  If you send an fd to someone who hasn't assigned any
placeholders to the receiving socket, then you get an error.

To keep the accounting sane, a placeholder would be a bona fide fd,
presumably a reference to a global placeholder anon_inode.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/