lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE_COMPAT flag
Date


On 22/09/2020 02:51, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 9:15 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 21/09/2020 19:10, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 20/09/2020 01:22, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 19, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 6:21 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:16 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.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_).
>>
>> Double checked -- I'm wrong, that's the former one. Most of it is based
>> on a flag that was set an creation.
>>
>
> Could we get away with making io_uring_enter() return -EINVAL (or
> maybe -ENOTTY?) if you try to do it with bitness that doesn't match
> the io_uring? And disable SQPOLL in compat mode?

Something like below. If PF_FORCE_COMPAT or any other solution
doesn't lend by the time, I'll take a look whether other io_uring's
syscalls need similar checks, etc.


diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 0458f02d4ca8..aab20785fa9a 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -8671,6 +8671,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(io_uring_enter, unsigned int, fd, u32, to_submit,
if (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_R_DISABLED)
goto out;

+ ret = -EINVAl;
+ if (ctx->compat != in_compat_syscall())
+ goto out;
+
/*
* For SQ polling, the thread will do all submissions and completions.
* Just return the requested submit count, and wake the thread if
@@ -9006,6 +9010,10 @@ static int io_uring_create(unsigned entries, struct io_uring_params *p,
if (ret)
goto err;

+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ if (ctx->compat)
+ goto err;
+
/* Only gets the ring fd, doesn't install it in the file table */
fd = io_uring_get_fd(ctx, &file);
if (fd < 0) {
--
Pavel Begunkov
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-22 02:25    [W:0.176 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site