linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] iov

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:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 03:15:35 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] iov_iter fixes

On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 09:06:58PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/9/21 8:48 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 07:35:13PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > 
> >> Yep ok I follow you now. And yes, if we get a partial one but one that
> >> has more consumed than what was returned, that would not work well. I'm
> >> guessing that a) we've never seen that, or b) we always end up with
> >> either correctly advanced OR fully advanced, and the fully advanced case
> >> would then just return 0 next time and we'd just get a short IO back to
> >> userspace.
> >>
> >> The safer way here would likely be to import the iovec again. We're
> >> still in the context of the original submission, and the sqe hasn't been
> >> consumed in the ring yet, so that can be done safely.
> > 
> > ... until you end up with something assuming that you've got the same
> > iovec from userland the second time around.
> > 
> > IOW, generally it's a bad idea to do that kind of re-imports.
> 
> That's really no different than having one thread do the issue, and
> another modify the iovec while it happens. It's only an issue if you
> don't validate it, just like you did the first time you imported. No
> assumptions need to be made here.

	It's not "need to be made", it's "will be mistakenly made by
somebody several years down the road"...