linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/11] fs: add new read_uptr and write

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: <CAHk-=wj_Br5dQt0GnMjHooSvBbVXwtGRVKQNkpCLwWjYko-4Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:02:48 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] fs: add new read_uptr and write_uptr file operations

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:29 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>
> So based on that I'd rather get away without our flag and tag the
> kernel pointer case in setsockopt explicitly.

Yeah, I'd be ok to pass that kind of flag around for setsockopt, in
ways I _don't_ want to do for some very core vfs thing like 'read()'.

That said, is there no practical limit on how big "optlen" can be?
Sure, I realize that a lot of setsockopt users may not use all of the
data, but let's say that "optlen" is 128, but the actual low-level
setsockopt operation only uses the first 16 bytes, maybe we could
always just copy the 128 bytes from user space into kernel space, and
just say "setsockopt() always gets a kernel pointer".

Then the bpf use is even simpler. It would just pass the kernel
pointer natively.

Because that seems to be what the BPF code really wants to do: it
takes the user optval, and munges it into a kernel optval, and then
(if that has been done) runs the low-level sock_setsockopt() under
KERNEL_DS.

Couldn't we switch things around instead, and just *always* copy
things from user space, and sock_setsockopt (and
sock->ops->setsockopt) _always_ get a kernel buffer?

And avoid the set_fs(KERNEL_DS) games entirely that way?

Attached it a RFC patch just for __sys_setsockopt() - note that it
does *not* change all the low-level setsockopt callers to just do the
kernel access instead, so this is completely broken, but you can kind
of see what I mean.

Wouldn't this work? In fact, wouldn't this simplify all the setsockopt
places that now don't need to do "get_user()" etc any more?

It would be better if we could limit "optlen" to something sane, but
right now it just does a kmalloc() of whatever the user claims the opt
len is..

                    Linus

Download attachment "patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (2079 bytes)