Thread (67 messages) 67 messages, 11 authors, 2020-09-23

Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE_COMPAT flag

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: 2020-09-19 21:16:41
Also in: io-uring, keyrings, linux-arch, linux-arm-kernel, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, linux-mips, linux-mm, linux-s390, linux-scsi, linuxppc-dev, lkml, netdev, sparclinux

On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 6:21 PM Andy Lutomirski [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:16 AM Christoph Hellwig [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 02:58:22PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
quoted
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?

       Arnd
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help