Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 20:33:44 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] get rid of the use of set_fs() (by way of
 kernel_recvmsg()) in sunrpc

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 07:31:56PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:

> * SO_RCVTIMEO/SO_SNDTIMEO handling in compat [sg]etsockopt()
> * passing SIOC{ADD,DEL}TUNNEL down (ipmr_del_tunnel(),ipmr_new_tunnel(),
>   addrconf_set_dstaddr())
> * SIOCGSTAMP/SIOCGSTAMPNS in compat ioctls
> * SIOCADDRT/SIOCDELRT in compat ioctls
> * kernel_[gs]etsockopt()
> * ipv6_renew_options_kern()
> 
> I don't know if all of that stuff can be realistically done without set_fs().
> kernel_setsockopt(), in particular, is unpleasant...

Speaking of weird indirect calls: in net/packet/af_packet.c:packet_ioctl() we
have this:
#ifdef CONFIG_INET
        case SIOCADDRT:
        case SIOCDELRT:
        case SIOCDARP:
        case SIOCGARP:
        case SIOCSARP:
        case SIOCGIFADDR:
        case SIOCSIFADDR:
        case SIOCGIFBRDADDR:
        case SIOCSIFBRDADDR:
        case SIOCGIFNETMASK:
        case SIOCSIFNETMASK:
        case SIOCGIFDSTADDR:
        case SIOCSIFDSTADDR:
        case SIOCSIFFLAGS:
                return inet_dgram_ops.ioctl(sock, cmd, arg);
#endif

That's inet_ioctl(sock, cmd, arg) disguised by indirect.  AFAICS,
that line dates back to 2.1.89; back then inet_dgram_ops had been
exported and inet_ioctl() had been static.  When SCTP went in
they'd exported inet_ioctl() rather than playing that kind of
games.

Is there anything subtle I'm missing here that would make it
wrong to replace that with explicit call of inet_ioctl()?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.