linux-kernel - Re: io_uring vs in_compat

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: <BACE670C-6A65-4D86-BC5F-A7EA267C3140@amacapital.net>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:58:37 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, 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 Jul 20, 2020, at 9:37 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

Is TS_COMPAT actually a cross-arch concept for which this is safe?  Having a real arch helper for “set the current syscall arch for the current kernel thread” seems more sensible to me.