[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200919220920.GI3421308@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 23:09:20 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE_COMPAT flag
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 05:16:15PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 02:58:22PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > Said that, why not provide a variant that would take an explicit
> > "is it compat" argument and use it there? And have the normal
> > one pass in_compat_syscall() to that...
>
> That would help to not introduce a regression with this series yes.
> But it wouldn't fix existing bugs when io_uring is used to access
> read or write methods that use in_compat_syscall(). One example that
> I recently ran into is drivers/scsi/sg.c.
So screw such read/write methods - don't use them with io_uring.
That, BTW, is one of the reasons I'm sceptical about burying the
decisions deep into the callchain - we don't _want_ different
data layouts on read/write depending upon the 32bit vs. 64bit
caller, let alone the pointer-chasing garbage that is /dev/sg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists