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]

Date:   Sun, 20 Sep 2020 15:55:47 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <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 <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Networking <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 Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 12:09 AM 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.

Would it be too late to limit what kind of file descriptors we allow
io_uring to read/write on?

If io_uring can get changed to return -EINVAL on trying to
read/write something other than S_IFREG file descriptors,
that particular problem space gets a lot simpler, but this
is of course only possible if nobody actually relies on it yet.

      Arnd