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: <CALCETrViwOdFia_aX4p4riE8aqop1zoOqVfiQtSAZEzheC+Ozg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 19 Sep 2020 17:14:41 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
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 <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-aio@...ck.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE_COMPAT flag

On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 4:24 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 03:53:40PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > > 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(...)
>
> 1) what would that look like?

In effect, it would work like this:

/* Arch-specific, but there's a generic case for sane architectures. */
enum syscall_arch {
  SYSCALL_NATIVE,
  SYSCALL_COMPAT,
  SYSCALL_X32,
};

DEFINE_MULTIARCH_SYSCALLn(args, arch)
{
  args are the args here, and arch is the arch.
}

> 2) have you counted the syscalls that do and do not need that?

No.

> 3) how many of those realistically *can* be unified with their
> compat counterparts?  [hint: ioctl(2) cannot]

There would be no requirement to unify anything.  The idea is that
we'd get rid of all the global state flags.

For ioctl, we'd have a new file_operation:

long ioctl(struct file *, unsigned int, unsigned long, enum syscall_arch);

I'm not saying this is easy, but I think it's possible and the result
would be more obviously correct than what we have now.