Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:10:49 -0600 From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com> Cc: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] io_uring: add restrictions to support untrusted applications and guests On 8/27/20 8:10 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 07:50:44AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 8/27/20 7:40 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >>> v5: >>> - explicitly assigned enum values [Kees] >>> - replaced kmalloc/copy_from_user with memdup_user [kernel test robot] >>> - added Kees' R-b tags >>> >>> v4: https://firstname.lastname@example.org/ >>> v3: https://email@example.com/ >>> RFC v2: https://firstname.lastname@example.org >>> RFC v1: https://email@example.com >>> >>> Following the proposal that I send about restrictions , I wrote this series >>> to add restrictions in io_uring. >>> >>> I also wrote helpers in liburing and a test case (test/register-restrictions.c) >>> available in this repository: >>> https://github.com/stefano-garzarella/liburing (branch: io_uring_restrictions) >>> >>> Just to recap the proposal, the idea is to add some restrictions to the >>> operations (sqe opcode and flags, register opcode) to safely allow untrusted >>> applications or guests to use io_uring queues. >>> >>> The first patch changes io_uring_register(2) opcodes into an enumeration to >>> keep track of the last opcode available. >>> >>> The second patch adds IOURING_REGISTER_RESTRICTIONS opcode and the code to >>> handle restrictions. >>> >>> The third patch adds IORING_SETUP_R_DISABLED flag to start the rings disabled, >>> allowing the user to register restrictions, buffers, files, before to start >>> processing SQEs. >>> >>> Comments and suggestions are very welcome. >> >> Looks good to me, just a few very minor comments in patch 2. If you >> could fix those up, let's get this queued for 5.10. >> > > Sure, I'll fix the issues. This is great :-) Thanks! I'll pull in your liburing tests as well once we get the kernel side sorted. -- Jens Axboe
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.