linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE

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: <486c92d0-0f2e-bd61-1ab8-302524af5e08@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:13:18 +0300
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE_COMPAT flag

On 21/09/2020 19:10, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 20/09/2020 01:22, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 19, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 6:21 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:16 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 02:58:22PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>>>>>> Said that, why not provide a variant that would take an explicit
>>>>>> "is it compat" argument and use it there?  And have the normal
>>>>>> one pass in_compat_syscall() to that...
>>>>>
>>>>> That would help to not introduce a regression with this series yes.
>>>>> But it wouldn't fix existing bugs when io_uring is used to access
>>>>> read or write methods that use in_compat_syscall().  One example that
>>>>> I recently ran into is drivers/scsi/sg.c.
>>>
>>> Ah, so reading /dev/input/event* would suffer from the same issue,
>>> and that one would in fact be broken by your patch in the hypothetical
>>> case that someone tried to use io_uring to read /dev/input/event on x32...
>>>
>>> For reference, I checked the socket timestamp handling that has a
>>> number of corner cases with time32/time64 formats in compat mode,
>>> but none of those appear to be affected by the problem.
>>>
>>>> Aside from the potentially nasty use of per-task variables, one thing
>>>> I don't like about PF_FORCE_COMPAT is that it's one-way.  If we're
>>>> going to have a generic mechanism for this, shouldn't we allow a full
>>>> override of the syscall arch instead of just allowing forcing compat
>>>> so that a compat syscall can do a non-compat operation?
>>>
>>> The only reason it's needed here is that the caller is in a kernel
>>> thread rather than a system call. Are there any possible scenarios
>>> where one would actually need the opposite?
>>>
>>
>> I can certainly imagine needing to force x32 mode from a kernel thread.
>>
>> As for the other direction: what exactly are the desired bitness/arch semantics of io_uring?  Is the operation bitness chosen by the io_uring creation or by the io_uring_enter() bitness?
> 
> It's rather the second one. Even though AFAIR it wasn't discussed
> specifically, that how it works now (_partially_).

Double checked -- I'm wrong, that's the former one. Most of it is based
on a flag that was set an creation.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov