linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 01/12] lib: introduce copy_struct_{to,from}

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: <20190906070048.tmhuemasmsn55spq@wittgenstein>
Date:   Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:00:49 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
        David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
        Chanho Min <chanho.min@....com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 01/12] lib: introduce copy_struct_{to,from}_user
 helpers

On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 05:56:18AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2019-09-05, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:23:03PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > 
> > > Because every caller of that function right now has that limit set
> > > anyway iirc. So we can either remove it from here and place it back for
> > > the individual callers or leave it in the helper.
> > > Also, I'm really asking, why not? Is it unreasonable to have an upper
> > > bound on the size (for a long time probably) or are you disagreeing with
> > > PAGE_SIZE being used? PAGE_SIZE limit is currently used by sched, perf,
> > > bpf, and clone3 and in a few other places.
> > 
> > For a primitive that can be safely used with any size (OK, any within
> > the usual 2Gb limit)?  Why push the random policy into the place where
> > it doesn't belong?
> > 
> > Seriously, what's the point?  If they want to have a large chunk of
> > userland memory zeroed or checked for non-zeroes - why would that
> > be a problem?
> 
> Thinking about it some more, there isn't really any r/w amplification --
> so there isn't much to gain by passing giant structs. Though, if we are
> going to permit 2GB buffers, isn't that also an argument to use
> memchr_inv()? :P

I think we should just do a really dumb, easy to understand minimal
thing for now. It could even just be what every caller is doing right
now anyway with the get_user() loop.
The only way to settle memchr_inv() vs all the other clever ways
suggested here is to benchmark it and see if it matters *for the current
users* of this helper. If it does, great we can do it. If it doesn't why
bother having that argument right now?
Once we somehow end up in a possible world where we apparently have
decided it's a great idea to copy 2GB argument structures for a syscall
into or from the kernel we can start optimizing the hell out of this.
Before that and especially with current callers I honestly doubt it
matters whether we use memchr_inv() or while() {get_user()} loops.

Christian