linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] vringfd syscall

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: <20080412173926.GA29904@dmt>
Date:	Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:39:26 -0300
From:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] vringfd syscall

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 02:18:20PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

> > +		mask = POLLIN | POLLRDNORM;
> > +	else
> > +		mask = 0;
> > +
> > +poll_wait:
> > +	poll_wait(filp, &vr->poll_wait, poll);
> > +
> > +	return mask;
> > +}
> 
> I suppose you are doing data copy in ->poll instead of ->read to save
> a system call? This is weird, not conformant to what the interface is
> supposed to do.
> 
> This way select/poll syscalls might block in userspace datacopy. The
> application might have a higher priority fd in the fdset to be informed
> of, for example.
> 
> So why not change this to the common arrangement, with vring_poll adding
> the waitqueue with poll_wait() and vring_read doing the actual data copy ?
> 
> > +struct vring_info *vring_attach(int fd, const struct vring_ops *ops,
> > +				void *data, bool atomic_use)
> > +{
> > +	struct file *filp;
> > +	struct vring_info *vr;
> > +
> > +	/* Must be a valid fd, and must be one of ours. */
> > +	filp = fget(fd);
> > +	if (!filp) {
> > +		vr = ERR_PTR(-EBADF);
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (filp->f_op != &vring_fops) {
> > +		vr = ERR_PTR(-EBADF);
> > +		goto fput;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* Mutex simply protects against parallel vring_attach. */
> > +	mutex_lock(&vring_lock);
> > +	vr = filp->private_data;
> > +	if (vr->ops) {
> > +		vr = ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> > +		goto unlock;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* If they want to use atomically, we have to map the page. */
> > +	if (atomic_use) {
> > +		if (get_user_pages(current, current->mm,
> > +				   (unsigned long)vr->ring.used, 1, 1, 1,
> > +				   &vr->used_page, NULL) != 1) {
> 
> Can't the same be achieved by the app mlocking the vring pages, which
> then goes through standard rlimit checking ?

Oh, this is a driver API to allow the copy to take place in atomic
contexes. You might want to add some sort of limit enforcement.

Also forgot mmap_sem there.

--
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/