Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE_COMPAT flag
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Date: 2020-09-22 06:32:52
Also in:
io-uring, keyrings, linux-arch, linux-arm-kernel, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, linux-mips, linux-mm, linux-s390, linux-scsi, linux-security-module, linuxppc-dev, lkml, sparclinux
On 22/09/2020 03:58, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 5:24 PM Pavel Begunkov [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
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.quoted
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; +This seems entirely reasonable to me. Sharing an io_uring ring between programs with different ABIs seems a bit nutty.quoted
/* * 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; +I may be looking at a different kernel than you, but aren't you preventing creating an io_uring regardless of whether SQPOLL is requested?
I diffed a not-saved file on a sleepy head, thanks for noticing. As you said, there should be an SQPOLL check. ... if (ctx->compat && (p->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL)) goto err; -- Pavel Begunkov