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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 14 May 2017 19:57:34 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] uaccess-related bits of vfs.git

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 08:13:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> I'd say that the CLAC/STAC addition pretty much killed any argument in favor of 
> "optimized" __get_user() code, so I'd be very happy to see these interfaces gone 
> altogether.

You and everybody else - these interfaces suck.  If anything, we want paired
brackets around a series of accesses instead of a single check in front of it.

> So as far as x86 usage goes:
> 
>   Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>

Umm...  Could you elaborate the situation with xen/page.h stuff?  I don't
see any obvious reasons that would guaratee that addresses passed to
__get_user() and __put_user() there would match the set_fs() state.

It might very well be true, but it's not obvious from that code...

BTW, does anybody have a suggestion regarding a test load that would hit
wait4/waitid as hard as possible?  I've turned sys_wait4/sys_waitid into
long kernel_wait4(pid_t upid, int *stat_addr, int options, struct rusage *ru)
and
static long kernel_waitid(int which, pid_t upid, struct waitid_info *infop,
                int options, struct rusage *ru)
(with struct waitid_info {
        pid_t pid;
        uid_t uid;
        int status;   
        int why;
};), so that all copying to userland is done in sys_wait4() and friends.
It seems to survive testing without any noticable slowdowns, but that's
just LTP and xfstests - and a bug in my earlier version of that was _not_
caught by the LTP side; xfstests caught it...  So any extra tests (both
for correctness and timing) would be very much appreciated...

Powered by blists - more mailing lists