linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] io_uring/cmd: Introduce SOCKET_URING_OP

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: <87fs4co3au.fsf@suse.de>
Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:52:57 -0400
From:   Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...e.de>
To:     Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc:     sdf@...gle.com, axboe@...nel.dk, asml.silence@...il.com,
        willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] io_uring/cmd: Introduce SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT

Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org> writes:

> Hello Gabriel,
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 02:38:46PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
>> Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org> writes:
>> 
>> > +#if defined(CONFIG_NET)
>> >  int io_uring_cmd_sock(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd, unsigned int issue_flags)
>> >  {
>> >  	struct socket *sock = cmd->file->private_data;
>> > @@ -189,8 +219,16 @@ int io_uring_cmd_sock(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd, unsigned int issue_flags)
>> >  		if (ret)
>> >  			return ret;
>> >  		return arg;
>> > +	case SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT:
>> > +		return io_uring_cmd_getsockopt(sock, cmd, issue_flags);
>> >  	default:
>> >  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> >  	}
>> >  }
>> > +#else
>> > +int io_uring_cmd_sock(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd, unsigned int issue_flags)
>> > +{
>> > +	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> > +}
>> > +#endif
>> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(io_uring_cmd_sock);
>> 
>> The CONFIG_NET guards are unrelated and need to go in a separate commit.
>> Specially because it is not only gating getsockopt, but also the already
>> merged SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCINQ/_OP_SIOCOUTQ.
>
> Well, so far, if CONFIG_NET is disable, and you call
> io_uring_cmd_getsockopt, the callbacks will be called and returned
> -EOPNOTSUPP.

I'm not talking about io_uring_cmd_getsockopt; that would obviously
return -EOPNOTSUPP before as well.  But you are changing
io_uring_cmd_sock, which does more things:

int io_uring_cmd_sock(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd, unsigned int issue_flags)
{
        [...]
	if (!prot || !prot->ioctl)
		return -EOPNOTSUPP;

	switch (cmd->sqe->cmd_op) {
	case SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCINQ:
		ret = prot->ioctl(sk, SIOCINQ, &arg);
		if (ret)
			return ret;
		return arg;
	case SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCOUTQ:
		ret = prot->ioctl(sk, SIOCOUTQ, &arg);
		if (ret)
			return ret;

With your patch, these two cmd_op, are now being gated by CONFIG_NET.  I
think it makes sense for them to be gated by it, But it should
be in a separated change, or at least explained in your commit message.

> With this new patch, it will eventually call sk_getsockopt which does
> not exist in the CONFIG_NET=n world. That is why I have this
> protection now. I.e, this `#if defined(CONFIG_NET)` is only necessary now,
> since it is the first time this function (io_uring_cmd_sock) will call a
> function that does not exist if CONFIG_NET is disabled.
>
> I can split it in a different patch, if you think it makes a difference.

-- 
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi