netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Use __scm_install

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: <202006100750.3CCF6242B4@keescook>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:52:48 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Use __scm_install_fd() more widely

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:47:35AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 09:52:12PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This extends the recent work hch did for scm_detach_fds(), and updates
> > the compat path as well, fixing bugs in the process. Additionally,
> > an effectively incomplete and open-coded __scm_install_fd() is fixed
> > in pidfd_getfd().
> 
> Since __scm_detach_fds() becomes something that is available outside of
> net/* should we provide a static inline wrapper under a different name? The
> "socket-level control message" prefix seems a bit odd in pidfd_getfd()
> and - once we make use of it there - seccomp.
> 
> I'd suggest we do:
> 
> static inline int fd_install_received(struct file *file, unsigned int flags)
> {
> 	return __scm_install_fd(file, NULL, flags);
> }
> 
> which can be called in pidfd_getfd() and once we have other callers that
> want the additional put_user() (e.g. seccomp_ in there we simply add:
> 
> static inline fd_install_user(struct file *file, unsigned int flags, int __user *ufd)
> {
> 	return __scm_install_fd(file, ufd, flags);
> }
> 
> and seems the wrappers both could happily live in the fs part of the world?

Yeah, this seems good. I also note that randconfigs are kicking back my
series as broken when CONFIG_NET=n (oops), so this needs some refactoring
before patch 2.

-- 
Kees Cook