linux-kernel - Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2 3/4] dm ioctl: Allow userspace to suppress uevent generation

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:   Sun, 25 Jun 2023 12:43:44 -0400
From:   Demi Marie Obenour <demi@...isiblethingslab.com>
To:     Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>, dm-devel@...hat.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2 3/4] dm ioctl: Allow userspace to suppress
 uevent generation

On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 06:33:33PM +0200, Milan Broz wrote:
> On 6/25/23 18:02, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 03:25:38PM +0200, Milan Broz wrote:
> > > On 6/25/23 01:09, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > > > Userspace can use this to avoid spamming udev with events that udev
> > > > should ignore.
> > > 
> > > Well, does it also mean that udev will not create /dev/disk/by-* symlinks
> > > (as response to the change udev event followed by internal udev blkid scan)?
> > 
> > In the use-case I have for this feature (block devices for Qubes VMs)
> > the blkid scan is unwanted and there are udev rules to prevent this.
> > 
> > > If it is a private device, that is ok. But for a visible device I think
> > > that it breaks some assumptions in userspace (presence of symlinks mentioned
> > > above etc).
> > 
> > The devices I am considering are implementation details of a userspace
> > process.  Nobody else should be opening them.  Ideally, no other
> > userspace process would even know they exist, at least without mucking
> > around in /proc or using ptrace.
> > 
> > > So, what is the exact use for this patch?
> > 
> > Ephemeral devices that are created, opened, marked for deferred removal,
> > assigned to a Xen VM (needs another patch currently being worked on),
> > and then closed.  udev has no business scanning these devices, and
> > indeed for it to scan them at all would be a security vulnerability
> > since their contents are under guest control.  There are udev rules to
> > ignore these devices, but for udev to even process the event wastes CPU
> > time and delays processing of other events that actually matter.  The
> > only symlink that possibly ought to be created is /dev/disk/by-diskseq
> > and I can just do that myself.
> But this is not clear from the patch header. I guess you also need
> to disable udev inotify on close on write, which will trigger device scan too.
> 
> BTW we use exactly this scenario in cryptsetup for years with existing flags
> (DM_UDEV_DISABLE_SUBSYSTEM_RULES_FLAG | DM_UDEV_DISABLE_DISK_RULES_FLAG
> DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG) - just rules are ignored while uevent is still
> sent.
> Anyway, not sure we need another way to disable it; I just asked do you need it.

How can one set these flags using the raw kernel ioctls?  The code I am
working on does not use libdevmapper at all and just uses the kernel API
directly.
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
Invisible Things Lab

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)