linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm 1/5][AIO] - Rework compat_sys_io

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]

Message-ID: <20061130105710.572d3c6e@frecb000686>
Date:	Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:57:10 +0100
From:	Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@...l.net>
To:	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Jean Pierre Dion <jean-pierre.dion@...l.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/5][AIO] - Rework compat_sys_io_submit

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:47:47 -0800, Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com> wrote:

> On Nov 29, 2006, at 2:32 AM, Sébastien Dugué wrote:
> 
> >                  compat_sys_io_submit() cleanup
> >
> >
> >   Cleanup compat_sys_io_submit by duplicating some of the native  
> > syscall
> > logic in the compat layer and directly calling io_submit_one() instead
> > of fooling the syscall into thinking it is called from a native 64-bit
> > caller.
> >
> >   This is needed for the completion notification patch to avoid having
> > to rewrite each iocb on the caller stack for sys_io_submit() to  
> > find the
> > sigevents.
> 
> You could explicitly mention that this eliminates:
> 
>   - the overhead of copying nr pointers on the userspace caller's stack
> 
>   - the arbitrary PAGE_SIZE/(sizeof(void *)) limit on the number of  
> iocbs that can be submitted
> 
> Those alone make this worth merging.

  Right, will add.

> 
> > +	if (unlikely(!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, iocb, (nr * sizeof(u32)))))
> > +		return -EFAULT;
> 
> I'm glad you got that right :)  I no doubt would have initially  
> hoisted these little checks into a shared helper function and missed  
> that detail of getting the size of the access_ok() right in the  
> compat case.

  Thanks.

> 
> > +	put_ioctx(ctx);
> > +
> > +	return i? i: ret;
> 
> sys_io_getevents() reads:

 uh!     ^^^^^^^^^    you must be meaning sys_io_submit()?

> 
>          put_ioctx(ctx);
>          return i ? i : ret;
> 
> So while this compat_sys_io_submit() logic seems fine and I would be  
> comfortable with it landing as-is, I'd also appreciate it if we  
> didn't introduce differences between the two functions when it seems  
> just as easy to make them the same.  (That chunk is just one  
> example.  There's whitespace, missing unlikely()s, etc).
> 

  OK, will fix.

  Thanks,

  Sébastien.


  
-
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/