[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] syscalls, x86: Add __NR_kcmp syscall
Cyrill Gorcunov <> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 03:29:50PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >
>> > It doesn't matter. Even if we take a list of objects the kernel either
>> > should return us some ordering info or find duplicates, in any case it
>> > makes things more complex i think. So we wanted to bring some minimum
>> > into kernel leaving the rest of work to user-space.
>> Agreed a syscall does the duplication is probably not the way to go.
>> A syscall that takes a huge list of objects would solve any security
>> concerns that we have with returning the object order to user space if
>> done carefully, but it would require a bunch of additional user space
>> and kernel memory.
> yes, an it increase syscall time itself since we will have to provide
> this memory dynamically

I just did a back of the napkin calculation.
struct kobj_id {
pid_t pid;
size_t descriptor;
size_t first_idx;
void *kernel_ignore_this_pointer;

int find_kobject_dups(int type, struct kobj_id __user *ids, size_t count);

Looks pretty reasonable on a 64bit machine for 100,000 file

3 Meg of input data.
4 Meg of an internal rbtree that remembers the first entry where
we saw an item.
struct {
struct rb_node node;
void *key;
size_t idx;

And the code is very straight forward. Insert each pointer to a kernel
object we find into an rbtree, and return the index we find. Then
finally tear down the rbtree.

8Meg worst case does not seem like a lot of memory to me. Especially
since half of it is userspace memory.

A simple implementation plus a guarantee that we will never ever
leak information that we don't intend to seem very attractive to me.

>> Sometimes taking a data structure transforming it into a weird form for
>> a specific task and then transforming the data structure back to it's
>> original form is a useful way to go. So I think a general kernel object
>> deduplicating system call is an interesting plan B, but a straight
>> comparison function if we can make it work is a lot more flexible and
>> useful.
> I hope the root-only restriction would resolve the potential security
> problem, since as I mentioned if I've hijacked the machine and already
> goot root -- mem order is not that interesting info I could obtain from
> such computer :)

We either need a full comparison operator or we don't. Root-only is a
solution just looking to get abused.


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-20 04:15    [W:0.104 / U:0.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site