linux-kernel - Re: opaque types instead of union epoll

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: <7b758a91-db08-3745-d08d-a09d00effb90@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:33:57 -0500
From:   Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>
To:     Sodagudi Prasad <psodagud@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: opaque types instead of union epoll_data

On 03/07/2017 07:31 AM, Sodagudi Prasad wrote:
> uapi structs epoll_data are more opaque than user space expects.
> kernel have defined as __u64 instead of the union epoll_data. Because
> of this libc have redefined struct epoll_event with union data
> member.

We do the same in glibc.

> https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic.git/+/master/libc/include/sys/epoll.h
> typedef union epoll_data {
>   void* ptr;
>   int fd;
>   uint32_t u32;
>   uint64_t u64;
> } epoll_data_t;
> struct epoll_event {
>   uint32_t events;
>   epoll_data_t data;
> }
> 
> Kernel UAPI header defined as "include/uapi/linux/eventpoll.h"
> struct epoll_event {
>         __u32 events;
>         __u64 data;  =====>opaque type instead of union epoll_data
> } EPOLL_PACKED;
> 
> 
> Because of this we are landing into some issues as we copy kernel
> headers. Will it be going to be addressed?

What issues are you having? 

Exactly what problems are you running in to? 

Using all of the UAPI headers directly is not a workable
solution, there is a lot of definition and cleanup work to do there.
Some of the headers are immediately useful, but others, as you note
require quite a bit of work to become useful.

The underlying issue of a mismatch between userspace expectations
and UAPI definitions will get addressed when someone, maybe you, 
works diligently to enhance the kernel UAPI headers to be generally 
useful to userspace.

I don't know anyone else who is working on this problem. Though I
have a vested interested in it as a glibc maintainer, since it would
be nice to avoid duplicate headers where possible between the kernel
and userspace.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.