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  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:   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