[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <563138b5-7073-74bc-f0c5-b2bad6277e87@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:10:20 +0300
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
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 20/09/2020 01:22, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> On Sep 19, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 6:21 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:16 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> 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.
>>
>> Ah, so reading /dev/input/event* would suffer from the same issue,
>> and that one would in fact be broken by your patch in the hypothetical
>> case that someone tried to use io_uring to read /dev/input/event on x32...
>>
>> For reference, I checked the socket timestamp handling that has a
>> number of corner cases with time32/time64 formats in compat mode,
>> but none of those appear to be affected by the problem.
>>
>>> Aside from the potentially nasty use of per-task variables, one thing
>>> I don't like about PF_FORCE_COMPAT is that it's one-way. If we're
>>> going to have a generic mechanism for this, shouldn't we allow a full
>>> override of the syscall arch instead of just allowing forcing compat
>>> so that a compat syscall can do a non-compat operation?
>>
>> The only reason it's needed here is that the caller is in a kernel
>> thread rather than a system call. Are there any possible scenarios
>> where one would actually need the opposite?
>>
>
> I can certainly imagine needing to force x32 mode from a kernel thread.
>
> As for the other direction: what exactly are the desired bitness/arch semantics of io_uring? Is the operation bitness chosen by the io_uring creation or by the io_uring_enter() bitness?
It's rather the second one. Even though AFAIR it wasn't discussed
specifically, that how it works now (_partially_).
--
Pavel Begunkov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists