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]

Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:57:11 +0300
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     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 22/09/2020 10:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:32 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 22/09/2020 03:58, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 5:24 PM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
>>> I may be looking at a different kernel than you, but aren't you
>>> preventing creating an io_uring regardless of whether SQPOLL is
>>> requested?
>>
>> I diffed a not-saved file on a sleepy head, thanks for noticing.
>> As you said, there should be an SQPOLL check.
>>
>> ...
>> if (ctx->compat && (p->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL))
>>         goto err;
> 
> Wouldn't that mean that now 32-bit containers behave differently
> between compat and native execution?
> 
> I think if you want to prevent 32-bit applications from using SQPOLL,
> it needs to be done the same way on both to be consistent:

The intention was to disable only compat not native 32-bit.

> 
>    if ((!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT) || ctx->compat) &&
>         (p->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL))
>             goto err;
> 
> I don't really see how taking away SQPOLL from 32-bit tasks is
> any better than just preventing access to the known-broken files
> as Al suggested, or adding the hack to make it work as in
> Christoph's original patch.

That's why I'm hoping that Christoph's work and the discussion will
reach consensus, but the bug should be patched in the end. IMHO,
it's a good and easy enough fallback option (temporal?).

> 
> Can we expect all existing and future user space to have a sane
> fallback when IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL fails?

SQPOLL has a few differences with non-SQPOLL modes, but it's easy
to convert between them. Anyway, SQPOLL is a privileged special
case that's here for performance/latency reasons, I don't think
there will be any non-accidental users of it.
-- 
Pavel Begunkov