Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 04:39:12 +0100 From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning to user-mode On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:21:37AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:12:54AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > Broken commit: "net: don't play with address limits in kernel_recvmsg". > > It would be OK if it was only about data. Unfortunately, that's not > > true in one case: svc_udp_recvfrom() wants ->msg_control. > > > > Another delicate place: you can't assume that write() always advances > > file position by its (positive) return value. btrfs stuff is sensitive > > to that. > > > > ashmem probably _is_ OK with demanding ->read_iter(), but I'm not sure > > about blind asma->file->f_pos += ret. That's begging for races. Actually, > > scratch that - it *is* racy. > > kvec_length(): please, don't. I would rather have the last remaining > iov_length() gone... What do you need it for, anyway? You have only > two users and both have the count passed to them (as *count and *cnt resp.) fcntl stuff: I've decided not to put something similar into work.compat since I couldn't decide what to do with compat stuff - word-by-word copy from userland converting to struct flock + conversion to posix_lock + actual work + conversion to flock + word-by-word copy to userland... Smells like we might be better off with compat_flock_to_posix_lock() et.al. I'm still not sure; played a bit one way and another and dediced to drop it for now. Hell knows...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.