| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:58:04 +0100
From: "Paolo Ciarrocchi" <paolo.ciarrocchi@...il.com>
To: "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
gorcunov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked_ioctl
On Jan 8, 2008 5:40 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>
> Here's a proposal for some useful code transformations the kernel janitors
> could do as opposed to running checkpatch.pl.
>
> Most ioctl handlers still running implicitely under the big kernel
> lock (BKL). But long term Linux is trying to get away from that. There is a new
> ->unlocked_ioctl entry point that allows ioctls without BKL, but the code
> needs to be explicitely converted to use this.
>
> The first step of getting rid of the BKL is typically to make it visible
> in the source. Once it is visible people will have incentive to eliminate it.
> That is how the BKL conversion project for Linux long ago started too.
> On 2.0 all system calls were still implicitely BKL and in 2.1 the
> lock/unlock_kernel()s were moved into the various syscall functions and then
> step by step eliminated.
>
> And now it's time to do the same for all the ioctls too.
>
> So my proposal is to convert the ->ioctl handlers all over the tree
> to ->unlocked_ioctl with explicit lock_kernel()/unlock_kernel.
>
> It is not a completely trivial conversion. You will have to
> at least read the source, although not completely understand it.
> But it is not very difficult.
>
> Rough recipe:
>
> Grep the source tree for "struct file_operations". You should
> fine something like
>
> static int xyz_ioctl(struct inode *i, struct file *f, unsigned cmd, unsigned long arg)
> {
> switch (cmd) {
> case IOCTL1:
> err = ...;
> ...
> break;
> case IOCTL2:
> ...
> err = ...;
> break;
> default:
> err = -ENOTTY;
> }
> return err;
> }
> ...
>
> struct file_operations xyz_ops = {
> ...
> .ioctl = xyz_ioctl
> };
>
> The conversion is now to change the prototype of xyz_ioctl to
>
> static long xyz_ioctl(struct file *f, unsigned cmd, unsigned long arg)
> {
> }
>
> This means return type from int to long and drop the struct inode * argument
>
> Then add lock_kernel() to the entry point and unlock_kernel() to all exit points.
> So you should get
>
> static long xyz_ioctl(struct file *f, unsigned cmd, unsigned long arg)
> {
> lock_kernel();
> ...
> unlock_kernel();
> return err;
> }
>
> The only thing you need to watch out for is that all returns get an unlock_kernel.
> so e.g. if the ioctl handler has early error exits they all need an own unlock_kernel()
> (if you prefer it you can also use a goto to handle this, but just adding own
> unlock_kernels is easier)
>
> so e.g. if you have
>
> case IOCTL1:
>
> ...
> if (something failed)
> return -EIO;
>
> you would convert it to
>
> if (something failed) {
> unlock_kernel();
> return -EIO;
> }
>
> It is very important that all returns have an unlock_kernel(), please always
> double and triple check that!
>
> Then change
>
> .ioctl = xyz_ioctl
>
> to
>
> .unlocked_ioctl = xyz_ioctl
>
> Then compile ideally test the result and submit it.
Hi Andi,
I grepped and tried to do what you suggested.
The first file that git grep reported was:
arch/arm/common/rtctime.c:static const struct file_operations rtc_fops = {
So I cooked up the following patch (probably mangled, just to give you
a rough idea of what I did):
diff --git a/arch/arm/common/rtctime.c b/arch/arm/common/rtctime.c
index bf1075e..19dedb5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/common/rtctime.c
+++ b/arch/arm/common/rtctime.c
@@ -189,13 +189,16 @@ static int rtc_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct
file *file, unsigned int cmd,
if (ret)
break;
ret = copy_to_user(uarg, &alrm.time, sizeof(tm));
- if (ret)
+ if (ret) {
+ unlock_kernel();
ret = -EFAULT;
+ }
break;
case RTC_ALM_SET:
ret = copy_from_user(&alrm.time, uarg, sizeof(tm));
if (ret) {
+ unlock_kernel();
ret = -EFAULT;
break;
}
@@ -215,8 +218,10 @@ static int rtc_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct
file *file, unsigned int cmd,
if (ret)
break;
ret = copy_to_user(uarg, &tm, sizeof(tm));
- if (ret)
+ if (ret) {
+ unlock_kernel();
ret = -EFAULT;
+ }
break;
case RTC_SET_TIME:
@@ -226,6 +231,7 @@ static int rtc_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct
file *file, unsigned int cmd,
}
ret = copy_from_user(&tm, uarg, sizeof(tm));
if (ret) {
+ unlock_kernel();
ret = -EFAULT;
break;
}
@@ -238,10 +244,12 @@ static int rtc_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct
file *file, unsigned int cmd,
* There were no RTC clocks before 1900.
*/
if (arg < 1900) {
+ unlock_kernel();
ret = -EINVAL;
break;
}
if (!capable(CAP_SYS_TIME)) {
+ unlock_kernel();
ret = -EACCES;
break;
}
@@ -257,6 +265,7 @@ static int rtc_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct
file *file, unsigned int cmd,
case RTC_WKALM_SET:
ret = copy_from_user(&alrm, uarg, sizeof(alrm));
if (ret) {
+ unlock_kernel();
ret = -EFAULT;
break;
}
@@ -268,8 +277,10 @@ static int rtc_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct
file *file, unsigned int cmd,
if (ret)
break;
ret = copy_to_user(uarg, &alrm, sizeof(alrm));
- if (ret)
+ if (ret) {
+ unlock_kernel();
ret = -EFAULT;
+ }
break;
default:
@@ -329,15 +340,18 @@ static int rtc_fasync(int fd, struct file *file, int on)
return fasync_helper(fd, file, on, &rtc_async_queue);
}
-static const struct file_operations rtc_fops = {
+static long rtc_fioctl(struct file_operations rtc_fops)
+{
+ lock_kernel();
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
.llseek = no_llseek,
.read = rtc_read,
.poll = rtc_poll,
- .ioctl = rtc_ioctl,
+ .unlocked_ioctl = rtc_ioctl,
.open = rtc_open,
.release = rtc_release,
.fasync = rtc_fasync,
+ unlock_kernel();
};
static struct miscdevice rtc_miscdev = {
Unforunately, after I wrote the patch I noticed that on a vanilla
kernel that file doesn't compile
so I cannot verify the work I did.
Am I'm working in the right direction or should I completely redo the patch?
Thanks.
Ciao,
--
Paolo
http://paolo.ciarrocchi.googlepages.com/
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists