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  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 19:12:08 +0100
From:   Al Viro <>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Jens Axboe <>, Arnd Bergmann <>,
        David Howells <>,
        linux-arm-kernel <>,
        X86 ML <>, LKML <>,
        "open list:MIPS" <>,
        Parisc List <>,
        linuxppc-dev <>,
        linux-s390 <>,
        sparclinux <>,
        linux-block <>,
        Linux SCSI List <>,
        Linux FS Devel <>,
        linux-aio <>,,
        linux-arch <>,
        Linux-MM <>,
        Network Development <>,,
        LSM List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE_COMPAT flag

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 09:59:36AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> As one example, look at __sys_setsockopt().  It's called for the
> native and compat versions, and it contains an in_compat_syscall()
> check.  (This particularly check looks dubious to me, but that's
> another story.)  If this were to be done with equivalent semantics
> without a separate COMPAT_DEFINE_SYSCALL and without
> in_compat_syscall(), there would need to be some indication as to
> whether this is compat or native setsockopt.  There are other
> setsockopt implementations in the net stack with more
> legitimate-seeming uses of in_compat_syscall() that would need some
> other mechanism if in_compat_syscall() were to go away.
> setsockopt is (I hope!) out of scope for io_uring, but the situation
> isn't fundamentally different from read and write.

	Except that setsockopt() had that crap very widespread; for read()
and write() those are very rare exceptions.

	Andy, please RTFS.  Or dig through archives.  The situation
with setsockopt() is *NOT* a good thing - it's (probably) the least
of the evils.  The last thing we need is making that the norm.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists