lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 12/26] compat_ioctl: move more drivers to compat_ptr_ioctl
From
Date
On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 17:55 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:35 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:21:53PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >
> > > If I understand your patch description well, using compat_ptr_ioctl
> > > only works if the driver is not for s390, right?
> >
> > No; s390 is where "oh, just set ->compat_ioctl same as ->unlocked_ioctl
> > and be done with that; compat_ptr() is a no-op anyway" breaks. IOW,
> > s390 is the reason for having compat_ptr_ioctl() in the first place;
> > that thing works on all biarch architectures, as long as all stuff
> > handled by ->ioctl() takes pointer to arch-independent object as
> > argument. IOW,
> > argument ignored => OK
> > any arithmetical type => no go, compat_ptr() would bugger it
> > pointer to int => OK
> > pointer to string => OK
> > pointer to u64 => OK
> > pointer to struct {u64 addr; char s[11];} => OK
>
> To be extra pedantic, the 'struct {u64 addr; char s[11];} '
> case is also broken on x86, because sizeof (obj) is smaller
> on i386, even though the location of the members are
> the same. i.e. you can copy_from_user() this

Actually, you can't even do that because the struct might sit at the end
of a page and then you'd erroneously fault in this case.

We had this a while ago with struct ifreq, see commit 98406133dd and its
parents.

johannes

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-25 23:28    [W:0.071 / U:5.704 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site