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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:36:40 -0600 From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: io_uring vs in_compat_syscall() On 7/20/20 12:10 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Jens, > > I just found a (so far theoretical) issue with the io_uring submission > offloading to workqueues or threads. We have lots of places using > in_compat_syscall() to check if a syscall needs compat treatmenet. > While the biggest users is iocttl(), we also have a fair amount of > places using in_compat_task() in read and write methods, and these > will not do the wrong thing when used with io_uring under certain > conditions. I'm not sure how to best fix this, except for making sure > in_compat_syscall() returns true one way or another for these cases. We can probably propagate this information in the io_kiocb via a flag, and have the io-wq worker set TS_COMPAT if that's the case. -- Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists