[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <206b634d-1d10-4057-ad8d-93e29fda5d6e@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 10:50:44 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tee: Use iov_iter to better support shared buffer
registration
On 12/5/23 9:55 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> hi Jens Axboe, Al Viro,
>
> On 12/4/23 18:13, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 12/4/23 10:02 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 12/4/23 17:40, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 12/4/23 9:36 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On 12/4/23 5:42 AM, Sumit Garg wrote:
>>>>>> IMO, access_ok() should be the first thing that import_ubuf() or
>>>>>> import_single_range() should do, something as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/iov_iter.c b/lib/iov_iter.c
>>>>>> index 8ff6824a1005..4aee0371824c 100644
>>>>>> --- a/lib/iov_iter.c
>>>>>> +++ b/lib/iov_iter.c
>>>>>> @@ -1384,10 +1384,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(import_single_range);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int import_ubuf(int rw, void __user *buf, size_t len, struct iov_iter *i)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> - if (len > MAX_RW_COUNT)
>>>>>> - len = MAX_RW_COUNT;
>>>>>> if (unlikely(!access_ok(buf, len)))
>>>>>> return -EFAULT;
>>>>>> + if (len > MAX_RW_COUNT)
>>>>>> + len = MAX_RW_COUNT;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> iov_iter_ubuf(i, rw, buf, len);
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jens A., Al Viro,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was there any particular reason which I am unaware of to perform
>>>>>> access_ok() check on modified input length?
>>>>>
>>>>> This change makes sense to me, and seems consistent with what is done
>>>>> elsewhere too.
>>>>
>>>> For some reason I missed import_single_range(), which does it the same
>>>> way as import_ubuf() currently does - cap the range before the
>>>> access_ok() check. The vec variants sum as they go, but access_ok()
>>>> before the range.
>>>>
>>>> I think part of the issue here is that the single range imports return 0
>>>> for success and -ERROR otherwise. This means that the caller does not
>>>> know if the full range was imported or not. OTOH, we always cap any data
>>>> transfer at MAX_RW_COUNT, so may make more sense to fix up the caller
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Should we limit to MAX_RW_COUNT or return an error? Seems to me that
>>> limiting could generate side effect later that could be not simple to
>>> debug.
>>
>> We've traditionally just truncated the length, so principle of least
>> surprise says we should continue doing that.
>>
>
>
> As Jens Wiklander has proposed using iov_iter_ubuf() instead of
> import_ubuf(), should I propose a patch updating import_ubuf() and
> import_single_range()? Or would you prefer that we keep the functions
> unchanged for the time being?
Arguably it should be consistent with iovec imports, which return the
length (or error). But it might be safer to just check access_ok()
first and then truncate at least, vs what is there now.
Note that for 6.8 import_single_range() is gone as it was really just
doing the same thing that import_ubuf() is. Any further changes in this
area should CC Christian Brauner as well, as he has that staged in his
tree.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists