[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxrrTV-xBbvEzVKsXRVKyvZhQZj-6BNDpTsG4J5k6CJEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:37:51 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHES] iov_iter.c rewrite
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> I certainly had missed that insanity during the analysis - we don't do
> a lot of O_DIRECT IO to/from kernel addresses of any sort... This
> codepath allows it ;-/ Ability to trigger it is equivalent to ability
> to run any code in kernel mode, so it's not an additional security hole,
> but...
Is there any chance we could just return EINVAL for this case?
Who does O_DIRECT on module load anyway? If this is only for
finit_module(), that uses "kernel_read()", and maybe we could just
make sure that the kernel_read() function never ever uses the
direct-IO paths?
[ Time passes, I look at the code ]
Oh crap. So the reason it triggers seems to be that we basically get a
random file descriptor that we didn't open, and then we have
vfs_read() ->
xfs_file_operations->read() ->
ew_sync_read() ->
xfs_file_operations->read_iter()
xfs_file_read_iter()
and we are stuck with this iterator that really just wants to do copies.
How about we make "kernel_read()" just clear O_DIRECT? Does that fix
it to just use copies?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists