netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE

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: <36CF3DE7-7B4B-41FD-9818-FDF8A5B440FB@amacapital.net>
Date:   Sat, 19 Sep 2020 15:53:40 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        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 Sep 19, 2020, at 3:41 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 03:23:54PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> 
>>>> On Sep 19, 2020, at 3:09 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Well, we could remove in_compat_syscall(), etc and instead have an implicit parameter in DEFINE_SYSCALL.  Then everything would have to be explicit.  This would probably be a win, although it could be quite a bit of work.
> 
> It would not be a win - most of the syscalls don't give a damn
> about 32bit vs. 64bit...

Any reasonable implementation would optimize it out for syscalls that don’t care.  Or it could be explicit:

DEFINE_MULTIARCH_SYSCALL(...)