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: <d5c6736a-2cb4-4e22-78da-a667bda5c05a@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 03:22:06 +0300
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 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 22/09/2020 02:51, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 9:15 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Could we get away with making io_uring_enter() return -EINVAL (or
> maybe -ENOTTY?) if you try to do it with bitness that doesn't match
> the io_uring?  And disable SQPOLL in compat mode?

Something like below. If PF_FORCE_COMPAT or any other solution
doesn't lend by the time, I'll take a look whether other io_uring's
syscalls need similar checks, etc.


diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 0458f02d4ca8..aab20785fa9a 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -8671,6 +8671,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(io_uring_enter, unsigned int, fd, u32, to_submit,
 	if (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_R_DISABLED)
 		goto out;
 
+	ret = -EINVAl;
+	if (ctx->compat != in_compat_syscall())
+		goto out;
+
 	/*
 	 * For SQ polling, the thread will do all submissions and completions.
 	 * Just return the requested submit count, and wake the thread if
@@ -9006,6 +9010,10 @@ static int io_uring_create(unsigned entries, struct io_uring_params *p,
 	if (ret)
 		goto err;
 
+	ret = -EINVAL;
+	if (ctx->compat)
+		goto err;
+
 	/* Only gets the ring fd, doesn't install it in the file table */
 	fd = io_uring_get_fd(ctx, &file);
 	if (fd < 0) {
-- 
Pavel Begunkov