linux-kernel - Re: [Y2038] [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] ppdev: add compat ioctl

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: <26603653.9xWxRUDZUD@wuerfel>
Date:	Wed, 08 Jul 2015 23:28:04 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	y2038@...ts.linaro.org
Cc:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Bamvor Zhang Jian <bamvor.zhangjian@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Y2038] [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] ppdev: add compat ioctl

On Wednesday 08 July 2015 13:17:18 John Stultz wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Bamvor Zhang Jian
> <bamvor.zhangjian@...aro.org> wrote:
> > Add compat ioctl in ppdev in order to solve the y2038 issue in
> > later patch.
> > This patch simply add pp_do_ioctl to compat_ioctl, because I found
> > that all the ioctl access the arg as a pointer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bamvor Zhang Jian <bamvor.zhangjian@...aro.org>

I just saw this mail fly by when you replied, but I guess it would
have been better to reply when the original mail came.

The description above makes no sense: The problem for compat ioctl
is not whether the argument is a pointer or not, but rather what
data structure it points to. In this case, we already know that 
it is /not/ compatible between 32-bit and 64-bit user space, because
at least two commands need special handling for the timespec
argument, which gets added in patch 4 of the series.

This means patches 3 and 4 have to be swapped in order to allow
bisection and not introduce a bug when only this one gets applied
but patch 4 is missing.

Moreover, all other ioctl commands that are handled in pp_ioctl
need to be checked regarding what their arguments are, including
data structures pointed to by the arguments (recursively, if there
are again pointers in those structures).

> >         unsigned int minor = iminor(inode);
> > @@ -744,6 +750,9 @@ static const struct file_operations pp_fops = {
> >         .write          = pp_write,
> >         .poll           = pp_poll,
> >         .unlocked_ioctl = pp_ioctl,
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > +       .compat_ioctl   = pp_compat_ioctl,
> > +#endif

The #ifdef here is not necessary, but will cause a warning on kernels 
that do not define CONFIG_COMPAT, in particular all 32-bit ones.

> Does adding this patch w/o the following patch break 32bit apps using
> this on 64bit kernels?

Without the patch, those apps will all get -EINVAL from the ioctl
handler. With the patch, the kernel actually performs the ioctl
that was requested, but that may use the wrong data structure.

	Arnd
--
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/