linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v5 13/14] platform/x86: wmi: create character devices when requested by drivers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <88208982e2b14b069bd58773180b5713@ausx13mpc120.AMER.DELL.COM>
Date:   Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:59:52 +0000
From:   <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com>
To:     <greg@...ah.com>
CC:     <dvhart@...radead.org>, <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>, <luto@...nel.org>,
        <quasisec@...gle.com>, <pali.rohar@...il.com>, <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        <mjg59@...gle.com>, <hch@....de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 13/14] platform/x86: wmi: create character devices when
 requested by drivers



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@...ah.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2017 2:35 AM
> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@...l.com>
> Cc: dvhart@...radead.org; Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>;
> LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org;
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>; quasisec@...gle.com;
> pali.rohar@...il.com; rjw@...ysocki.net; mjg59@...gle.com; hch@....de
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/14] platform/x86: wmi: create character devices when
> requested by drivers
> 
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 11:59:57PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > For WMI operations that are only Set or Query read or write sysfs
> > attributes created by WMI vendor drivers make sense.
> >
> > For other WMI operations that are run on Method, there needs to be a
> > way to guarantee to userspace that the results from the method call
> > belong to the data request to the method call.  Sysfs attributes don't
> > work well in this scenario because two userspace processes may be
> > competing at reading/writing an attribute and step on each other's
> > data.
> >
> > When a WMI vendor driver declares an ioctl callback in the wmi_driver
> > the WMI bus driver will create a character device that maps to that
> > function.
> >
> > That character device will correspond to this path:
> > /dev/wmi/$driver
> >
> > The WMI bus driver will interpret the IOCTL calls, test them for
> > a valid instance and pass them on to the vendor driver to run.
> >
> > This creates an implicit policy that only driver per character
> > device.  If a module matches multiple GUID's, the wmi_devices
> > will need to be all handled by the same wmi_driver if the same
> > character device is used.
> >
> > The WMI vendor drivers will be responsible for managing access to
> > this character device and proper locking on it.
> >
> > When a WMI vendor driver is unloaded the WMI bus driver will clean
> > up the character device.
> 
> What prevents the vendor driver from being unloaded while the ioctl is
> being called in it?  I don't see any protection here from that at all :(
> 

In my driver I take a mutex that blocks unloading while running ioctl, 
but you mean you want one in the bus driver more generally, OK.

> > +static long wmi_unlocked_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
> > +			       unsigned long arg)
> > +{
> > +	return match_ioctl(filp, cmd, arg, 0);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static long wmi_compat_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
> > +			     unsigned long arg)
> > +{
> > +	return match_ioctl(filp, cmd, arg, 1);
> > +}
> 
> Why a compat ioctl at all?  That's for older interfaces, not for brand
> new ones where you design the ioctl structures "correctly" to work on
> both 32 and 64 bits at the same time.  That should not be needed at all.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

I was trying to make sure that any other future vendor drivers had it for an
option.  I wasn't aware that new code shouldn't use it.   OK, I'll remove it.