linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 0/2] iter revert problems

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f1ccbea939f54b779004d1da51a70160@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:28:30 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Jens Axboe' <axboe@...nel.dk>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Pavel Begunkov" <asml.silence@...il.com>
CC:     "io-uring@...r.kernel.org" <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Palash Oswal <oswalpalash@...il.com>,
        "Sudip Mukherjee" <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "syzbot+9671693590ef5aad8953@...kaller.appspotmail.com" 
        <syzbot+9671693590ef5aad8953@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/2] iter revert problems

From: Jens Axboe
> Sent: 22 August 2021 00:14
> 
> On 8/21/21 4:25 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 03:24:28PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >> On 8/12/21 9:40 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >>> For the bug description see 2/2. As mentioned there the current problems
> >>> is because of generic_write_checks(), but there was also a similar case
> >>> fixed in 5.12, which should have been triggerable by normal
> >>> write(2)/read(2) and others.
> >>>
> >>> It may be better to enforce reexpands as a long term solution, but for
> >>> now this patchset is quickier and easier to backport.
> >>
> >> We need to do something with this, hopefully soon.
> >
> > I still don't like that approach ;-/  If anything, I would rather do
> > something like this, and to hell with one extra word on stack in
> > several functions; at least that way the semantics is easy to describe.
> 
> Pavel suggested this very approach initially as well when we discussed
> it, and if you're fine with the extra size_t, it is by far the best way
> to get this done and not have a wonky/fragile API.

All (well maybe almost all) the users of iov_iter have the
short iov[] cache and the pointer to the big iov[] to kfree()
allocated together with the iov_iter structure itself.
These are almost always on stack.

Putting the whole lot together in a single structure would
make the call sequences a lot less complex and wouldn't use
any more stack/data is almost all the cases.

It would also mean that the 'iter' code could always have a pointer
to the base of the original iov[] list.
The lack of which is probably makes the 'revert' code hard?

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)