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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:34:12 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: io_uring vs in_compat_syscall()

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:31:02AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > What do you mean with "properly wired up".  Do you really want to spread
> > ->compat_foo methods everywhere, including read and write?  I found
> > in_compat_syscall() a lot small and easier to maintain than all the
> > separate compat cruft.
> 
> I was imagining using a flag.  Some of the net code uses
> MSG_CMSG_COMPAT for this purpose.

Killing that nightmarish monster is what actually got me into looking
io_uring and starting this thread.