netdev - Re: [PATCH 5/9] fs: remove various compat readv/writev helpers

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: <CAMzpN2idk7bc7+37sj5UFD_PUOXCxn+RS8xmviq6Yc_LU4jyCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:08:49 -0400
From:   Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <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@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-aio@...ck.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] fs: remove various compat readv/writev helpers

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:39 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 03:59:01PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > > That's a very good question.  But it does not just compile but actually
> > > works.  Probably because all the syscall wrappers mean that we don't
> > > actually generate the normal names.  I just tried this:
> > >
> > > --- a/include/linux/syscalls.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/syscalls.h
> > > @@ -468,7 +468,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys_lseek(unsigned int fd, off_t offset,
> > >  asmlinkage long sys_read(unsigned int fd, char __user *buf, size_t count);
> > >  asmlinkage long sys_write(unsigned int fd, const char __user *buf,
> > >                             size_t count);
> > > -asmlinkage long sys_readv(unsigned long fd,
> > > +asmlinkage long sys_readv(void *fd,
> > >
> > > for fun, and the compiler doesn't care either..
> >
> > Try to build it for sparc or ppc...
>
> FWIW, declarations in syscalls.h used to serve 4 purposes:
>         1) syscall table initializers needed symbols declared
>         2) direct calls needed the same
>         3) catching mismatches between the declarations and definitions
>         4) centralized list of all syscalls
>
> (2) has been (thankfully) reduced for some time; in any case, ksys_... is
> used for the remaining ones.
>
> (1) and (3) are served by syscalls.h in architectures other than x86, arm64
> and s390.  On those 3 (1) is done otherwise (near the syscall table initializer)
> and (3) is not done at all.
>
> I wonder if we should do something like
>
> SYSCALL_DECLARE3(readv, unsigned long, fd, const struct iovec __user *, vec,
>                  unsigned long, vlen);
> in syscalls.h instead, and not under that ifdef.
>
> Let it expand to declaration of sys_...() in generic case and, on x86, into
> __do_sys_...() and __ia32_sys_...()/__x64_sys_...(), with types matching
> what SYSCALL_DEFINE ends up using.
>
> Similar macro would cover compat_sys_...() declarations.  That would
> restore mismatch checking for x86 and friends.  AFAICS, the cost wouldn't
> be terribly high - cpp would have more to chew through in syscalls.h,
> but it shouldn't be all that costly.  Famous last words, of course...
>
> Does anybody see fundamental problems with that?

I think this would be a good idea.  I have been working on a patchset
to clean up the conditional syscall handling (sys_ni.c), and conflicts
with the prototypes in syscalls.h have been getting in the way.
Having the prototypes use SYSCALL_DECLAREx(...) would solve that
issue.

--
Brian Gerst