linux-kernel - Re: [patch 05/11] syslets: core code

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: <20070213224131.GK22104@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:41:31 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@....com.au>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
	Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 05/11] syslets: core code

* Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:

> > > > +	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, arg_ptr, sizeof(*arg_ptr)))
> > > > +		return -EFAULT;
> > > 
> > > It's a little unclear why you do that many individual access_ok()s. 
> > > And why is the target constant sized anyways?
> > 
> > each indirect pointer has to be checked separately, before dereferencing 
> > it. (Andrew pointed out that they should be VERIFY_READ, i fixed that in 
> > my tree)
> 
> But why only constant sized? It could be a variable length object, 
> couldn't it?

i think what you might be missing is that it's only the 6 syscall 
arguments that are fetched via indirect pointers - security checks are 
then done by the system calls themselves. It's a bit awkward to think 
about, but it is surprisingly clean in the assembly, and it simplified 
syslet programming too.

> > get_user_pages() would have to be limited in some way - and i didnt 
> > want
> 
> If you only use it for a small ring buffer it is naturally limited.

yeah, but 'small' is a dangerous word when it comes to adding IO 
interfaces ;-)

> > a single page is enough for 1024 completion pointers - that's more 
> > than enough for most purposes - and the default mlock limit is 40K.
> 
> Then limit it to a single page and use gup

1024 (512 on 64-bit) is alot but not ALOT. It is also certainly not 
ALOOOOT :-) Really, people will want to have more than 512 
disks/spindles in the same box. I have used such a beast myself. For Tux 
workloads and benchmarks we had parallelism levels of millions of 
pending requests (!) on a single system - networking, socket limits, 
disk IO combined with thousands of clients do create such scenarios. I 
really think that such 'pinned pages' are a pretty natural fit for 
sys_mlock() and RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, and since the kernel side is careful to 
use the _inatomic() uaccess methods, it's safe (and fast) as well.

	Ingo
-
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/