linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] uring

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z60s3ryl5UotleV-@kbusch-mbp>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 16:21:02 -0700
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To: Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@...estorage.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
	Riley Thomasson <riley@...estorage.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] uring_cmd SQE corruptions

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 03:07:30PM -0800, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
> 
> Yes, we completely agree. We are working on incorporating Keith's
> patchset now. It looks like there is still an open question about
> whether userspace will need to enforce ordering between the requests
> (either using linked operations or waiting for completions before
> submitting the subsequent operations).

In its current form, my series depends on you *not* using linked
requests. I didn't think it would be a problem as it follows an existing
pattern from the IORING_OP_FILES_UPDATE operation. That has to complete
in its entirety before prepping any subsequent commands that reference
the index, and using links would get the wrong results.