linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH gmem FIXUP] kvm: guestmem: do not use a file system

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:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 21:06:08 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH gmem FIXUP] kvm: guestmem: do not use a file system

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 07:32:48AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:

> Yeah, we found that out the hard way.  Is using the "secure" variant to get a
> per-file inode a sane approach, or is that abuse that's going to bite us too?
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Use the so called "secure" variant, which creates a unique inode
> 	 * instead of reusing a single inode.  Each guest_memfd instance needs
> 	 * its own inode to track the size, flags, etc.
> 	 */
> 	file = anon_inode_getfile_secure(anon_name, &kvm_gmem_fops, gmem,
> 					 O_RDWR, NULL);

Umm...  Is there any chance that your call site will ever be in a module?
If not, you are probably OK with that variant.  I don't like the details
of that interface (anon_inode_getfile_secure(), that is), but that's
a separate story and your use wouldn't make things harder to clean up.