linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 08/10] rfkill: Use switch to demux userspace operations

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: <CA+A7VXWWQOti7pOre08QcXN9vgssQH3V1f6RjphaK0VwM27C7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:15:27 -0500
From:	João Paulo Rechi Vita <jprvita@...il.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	Jouni Malinen <j@...fi>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux@...lessm.com,
	João Paulo Rechi Vita <jprvita@...lessm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 08/10] rfkill: Use switch to demux userspace operations

On 1 March 2016 at 08:43, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 00:39 +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
>> > I agree there is a difference in the logic here,
>
> Gah. I thought I'd reviewed the logic and made sure there's no
> difference ... :)
>
>> >  thanks for taking the
>> > time to point it out so clearly, and sorry for missing this. But AFAIU
>> > userspace should not call RFKILL_OP_CHANGE with ev.type ==
>> > RFKILL_TYPE_ALL, as RFKILL_OP_CHANGE is intended to be used to
>> > block/unblock one RFKill switch, and it is not possible to create a
>> > RFKill switch with type == RFKILL_TYPE_ALL (rfkill_alloc() would
>> > return NULL).
>
>> Interesting. Maybe Johannes can comment on that part since I think he
>> wrote the code that interacts with kernel for the rfkill test cases.
>
> So first of all, it seems that this argument is invalid since we can't break the ABI/API here; although perhaps if it's only a test case ...
>

Yep, that's an important point (not breaking the API/ABI).

> Oh. It took me a while, but I see now. The original intent (I think)
> was that with RFKILL_OP_CHANGE, the type would be ignored entirely. It
> seems that the (my) original intent wouldn't have been to force
> userspace to specify *both* the index and the type, but instead do
>
> OP_CHANGE_ALL -> use type (possibly TYPE_ALL, ignoring idx)
> OP_CHANGE     -> use idx (ignoring type)
>
>
> The original code implemented it as follows:
>
>                 if (rfkill->idx != ev.idx && ev.op != RFKILL_OP_CHANGE_ALL)
>                         continue;
>
> -> check the idx only for OP_CHANGE
>
>                 if (rfkill->type != ev.type && ev.type != RFKILL_TYPE_ALL)
>                         continue;
>
> -> check the type, allowing _ALL
>
> Now, all userspace that I found sets the ev.type field to TYPE_ALL all
> the time; and it had to given these checks.
>
> e.g. from rfkill.py:
>
> # idx, type, op, soft, hard
> _event_struct = '@...BB'
>
> [...]
>
>     def block(self):
>         rfk = open('/dev/rfkill', 'w')
>         s = struct.pack(_event_struct, self.idx, TYPE_ALL, _OP_CHANGE, 1, 0)
>         rfk.write(s)
>         rfk.close()
>
>
> This check, originally, probably should've been
>
>                 if (rfkill->type != ev.type && ev.type != RFKILL_TYPE_ALL &&
>                     ev.op != RFKILL_OP_CHANGE)
>                         continue;
>
> to ignore the type entirely.
>
> I'm fine with Jouni's change, preserving the original behaviour of
> requiring TYPE_ALL or the correct type, but I'm tempted to simply
> remove the type check entirely.
>
> Thoughts?
>

I think this patch should keep the original logic, as this is supposed
to be a refactor only. If we decide to remove the check, we should to
it in a separate patch, to make it clear for someone looking at the
history later.

I'm fine with removing the type check (in a separate patch), but I
don't see much gain in doing so.

--
João Paulo Rechi Vita
http://about.me/jprvita