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: <20200920025745.GL3421308@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Sun, 20 Sep 2020 03:57:45 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
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 05:14:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> > 2) have you counted the syscalls that do and do not need that?
> 
> No.

Might be illuminating...

> > 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.

_What_ global state flags?  When you have separate SYSCALL_DEFINE3(ioctl...)
and COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE3(ioctl...), there's no flags at all, global or
local.  They only come into the play when you try to share the same function
for both, right on the top level.

> 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.

No, it would not.  Seriously, from time to time a bit of RTFS before grand
proposals turns out to be useful.