linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 12/26] compat_ioctl: move more drivers to compat_ptr

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: <20190425164235.GT2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 25 Apr 2019 17:42:35 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        driverdevel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>, qat-linux@...el.com,
        "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" 
        <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        "open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        ceph-devel <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Sean Young <sean@...s.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/26] compat_ioctl: move more drivers to
 compat_ptr_ioctl

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 05:55:23PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:35 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:21:53PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >
> > > If I understand your patch description well, using compat_ptr_ioctl
> > > only works if the driver is not for s390, right?
> >
> > No; s390 is where "oh, just set ->compat_ioctl same as ->unlocked_ioctl
> > and be done with that; compat_ptr() is a no-op anyway" breaks.  IOW,
> > s390 is the reason for having compat_ptr_ioctl() in the first place;
> > that thing works on all biarch architectures, as long as all stuff
> > handled by ->ioctl() takes pointer to arch-independent object as
> > argument.  IOW,
> >         argument ignored => OK
> >         any arithmetical type => no go, compat_ptr() would bugger it
> >         pointer to int => OK
> >         pointer to string => OK
> >         pointer to u64 => OK
> >         pointer to struct {u64 addr; char s[11];} => OK
> 
> To be extra pedantic, the 'struct {u64 addr; char s[11];} '
> case is also broken on x86, because sizeof (obj) is smaller
> on i386, even though the location of the members are
> the same. i.e. you can copy_from_user() this, but not
> copy_to_user(), which overwrites 4 bytes after the end of
> the 20-byte user structure.

D'oh!  FWIW, it might be worth putting into Documentation/ somewhere;
basically, what is and what isn't biarch-neutral.

Or arch-neutral, for that matter - it's very close.  The only real
exception, IIRC, is an extra twist on m68k, where int behaves
like x86 long long - its alignment is only half its size, so
sizeof(struct {char c; int x;}) is 6, not 8 as everywhere
else.  Irrelevant for biarch, thankfully (until somebody gets insane
enough to implement 64bit coldfire, kernel port for it *and* biarch
support for m68k binaries on that thing, that is)...