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: <CAK8P3a37BRFj_qg61gP2oVrjJzBrZ58y1vggeTk_5n55Ou5U2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 20 Sep 2020 22:49:03 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        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 <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 Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 9:28 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 12:23 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 08:10:31PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > IMO it's much saner to mark those and refuse to touch them from io_uring...
> >
> > Simpler solution is to remove io_uring from the 32-bit syscall list.
> > If you're a 32-bit process, you don't get to use io_uring.  Would
> > any real users actually care about that?
>
> We could go one step farther and declare that we're done adding *any*
> new compat syscalls :)

Would you also stop adding system calls to native 32-bit systems then?

On memory constrained systems (less than 2GB a.t.m.), there is still a
strong demand for running 32-bit user space, but all of the recent Arm
cores (after Cortex-A55) dropped the ability to run 32-bit kernels, so
that compat mode may eventually become the primary way to run
Linux on cheap embedded systems.

I don't think there is any chance we can realistically take away io_uring
from the 32-bit ABI any more now.

      Arnd