linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 29/29] y2038: add 64-bit time_t syscalls to all 32-bit architectures

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: <20190119142852.cntdihah4mpa3lgx@e5254000004ec.dyn.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Sat, 19 Jan 2019 14:28:52 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@...aro.org>,
        alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 29/29] y2038: add 64-bit time_t syscalls to all 32-bit
 architectures

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:53:25AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:33 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:50 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:25 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > > > - Once we get to 512, we clash with the x32 numbers (unless
> > > >   we remove x32 support first), and probably have to skip
> > > >   a few more. I also considered using the 512..547 space
> > > >   for 32-bit-only calls (which never clash with x32), but
> > > >   that also seems to add a bit of complexity.
> > >
> > > I have a patch that I'll send soon to make x32 use its own table.  As
> > > far as I'm concerned, 547 is *it*.  548 is just a normal number and is
> > > not special.  But let's please not reuse 512..547 for other purposes
> > > on x86 variants -- that way lies even more confusion, IMO.
> >
> > Fair enough, the space for those numbers is cheap enough here.
> > I take it you mean we also should not reuse that number space if
> > we were to decide to remove x32 soon, but you are not worried
> > about clashing with arch/alpha when everything else uses consistent
> > numbers?
> >
> 
> I think we have two issues if we reuse those numbers for new syscalls.
> First, I'd really like to see new syscalls be numbered consistently
> everywhere, or at least on all x86 variants, and we can't on x32
> because they mean something else.  Perhaps more importantly, due to
> what is arguably a rather severe bug, issuing a native x86_64 syscall
> (x32 bit clear) with nr in the range 512..547 does *not* return
> -ENOSYS on a kernel with x32 enabled.  Instead it does something that
> is somewhat arbitrary.  With my patch applied, it will return -ENOSYS,
> but old kernels will still exist, and this will break syscall probing.
> 
> Can we perhaps just start the consistent numbers above 547 or maybe
> block out 512..547 in the new regime?

I don't think you gain much with that kind of scheme - it won't take
very long before an architecture misses having a syscall added, and
then someone else adds their own.  Been there with ARM - I was keeping
the syscall table in the same order as x86 for new syscalls, but now
that others have been adding syscalls to the table since I converted
ARM to the tabular form, that's now gone out the window.

So, I think it's completely pointless to do what you're suggesting.
We'll just end up with a big hole in the middle of the syscall table
and then revert back to random numbering of syscalls thereafter again.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up