All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
To: benh@kernel.crashing.org
Cc: parabelboi@bopserverein.de, Christian Krafft <krafft@de.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/2] powerpc: avoid userspace poking to legacy ioports
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:15:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080218211519.2b159ade@hyperion.delvare> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1202935374.7296.44.camel@pasglop>

Hi Ben,

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:42:54 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 18:35 +0100, Christian Krafft wrote:
> > sensors_detect crashes kernel on PowerPC, as it pokes directly to memory.

For the records, sensors-detect accesses I/O ports, not memory.

> > This patch adds a check_legacy_ioports to read_port and write_port.
> > It will now return ENXIO, instead of oopsing.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Krafft <krafft@de.ibm.com>
> 
> The problem is that this prevents using /proc/ioports to access PCI
> IO space, which might be useful.

Maybe Christian's patch can be improved to not do the check on these?
As long as /dev/port exists, it seems reasonable that the kernel should
behave, no matter what I/O ports are accessed from user-space.

> I hate that sensors_detect.. or for that matter any other userland code
> that pokes random ports like that. It should die.

What do you propose as a replacement?

And how is userland code poking at random ports different from kernel
code poking at random ports? We could move sensors-detect inside the
kernel (and I have some plan to do that) but I fail to see how this
would solve this particular problem.

> > Index: linux.git/drivers/char/mem.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.git.orig/drivers/char/mem.c
> > +++ linux.git/drivers/char/mem.c
> > @@ -566,8 +566,13 @@ static ssize_t read_port(struct file * f
> >  	char __user *tmp = buf;
> >  
> >  	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, buf, count))
> > -		return -EFAULT; 
> > +		return -EFAULT;
> > +
> >  	while (count-- > 0 && i < 65536) {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MERGE
> > +		if (check_legacy_ioport(i))
> > +			return -ENXIO;
> > +#endif
> >  		if (__put_user(inb(i),tmp) < 0) 
> >  			return -EFAULT;  
> >  		i++;
> > @@ -585,6 +590,7 @@ static ssize_t write_port(struct file * 
> >  
> >  	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ,buf,count))
> >  		return -EFAULT;
> > +
> >  	while (count-- > 0 && i < 65536) {
> >  		char c;
> >  		if (__get_user(c, tmp)) {
> > @@ -592,6 +598,10 @@ static ssize_t write_port(struct file * 
> >  				break;
> >  			return -EFAULT; 
> >  		}
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MERGE
> > +		if (check_legacy_ioport(i))
> > +			return -ENXIO;
> > +#endif
> >  		outb(c,i);
> >  		i++;
> >  		tmp++;


-- 
Jean Delvare

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
To: benh@kernel.crashing.org
Cc: Christian Krafft <krafft@de.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, parabelboi@bopserverein.de,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/2] powerpc: avoid userspace poking to legacy ioports
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:15:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080218211519.2b159ade@hyperion.delvare> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1202935374.7296.44.camel@pasglop>

Hi Ben,

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:42:54 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 18:35 +0100, Christian Krafft wrote:
> > sensors_detect crashes kernel on PowerPC, as it pokes directly to memory.

For the records, sensors-detect accesses I/O ports, not memory.

> > This patch adds a check_legacy_ioports to read_port and write_port.
> > It will now return ENXIO, instead of oopsing.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Krafft <krafft@de.ibm.com>
> 
> The problem is that this prevents using /proc/ioports to access PCI
> IO space, which might be useful.

Maybe Christian's patch can be improved to not do the check on these?
As long as /dev/port exists, it seems reasonable that the kernel should
behave, no matter what I/O ports are accessed from user-space.

> I hate that sensors_detect.. or for that matter any other userland code
> that pokes random ports like that. It should die.

What do you propose as a replacement?

And how is userland code poking at random ports different from kernel
code poking at random ports? We could move sensors-detect inside the
kernel (and I have some plan to do that) but I fail to see how this
would solve this particular problem.

> > Index: linux.git/drivers/char/mem.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.git.orig/drivers/char/mem.c
> > +++ linux.git/drivers/char/mem.c
> > @@ -566,8 +566,13 @@ static ssize_t read_port(struct file * f
> >  	char __user *tmp = buf;
> >  
> >  	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, buf, count))
> > -		return -EFAULT; 
> > +		return -EFAULT;
> > +
> >  	while (count-- > 0 && i < 65536) {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MERGE
> > +		if (check_legacy_ioport(i))
> > +			return -ENXIO;
> > +#endif
> >  		if (__put_user(inb(i),tmp) < 0) 
> >  			return -EFAULT;  
> >  		i++;
> > @@ -585,6 +590,7 @@ static ssize_t write_port(struct file * 
> >  
> >  	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ,buf,count))
> >  		return -EFAULT;
> > +
> >  	while (count-- > 0 && i < 65536) {
> >  		char c;
> >  		if (__get_user(c, tmp)) {
> > @@ -592,6 +598,10 @@ static ssize_t write_port(struct file * 
> >  				break;
> >  			return -EFAULT; 
> >  		}
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MERGE
> > +		if (check_legacy_ioport(i))
> > +			return -ENXIO;
> > +#endif
> >  		outb(c,i);
> >  		i++;
> >  		tmp++;


-- 
Jean Delvare

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-02-18 20:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-13 17:28 [Patch 0/2] add check_legacy_ioport calls to prevent oops Christian Krafft
2008-02-13 17:28 ` Christian Krafft
2008-02-13 17:35 ` [Patch 0/2] powerpc: avoid userspace poking to legacy ioports Christian Krafft
2008-02-13 20:42   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-13 20:42     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-13 23:07     ` Arnd Bergmann
2008-02-13 23:07       ` Arnd Bergmann
2008-02-18 20:15     ` Jean Delvare [this message]
2008-02-18 20:15       ` Jean Delvare
2008-02-18 20:42       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-18 20:42         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-18 20:58         ` Jean Delvare
2008-02-18 20:58           ` Jean Delvare
2008-02-18 21:04           ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-02-18 21:04             ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-02-18 21:05           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-18 21:05             ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-13 17:37 ` [Patch 2/2] powerpc: i2c-isa: add access check " Christian Krafft
2008-02-18 13:31   ` Jean Delvare
2008-02-18 13:31     ` Jean Delvare

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080218211519.2b159ade@hyperion.delvare \
    --to=khali@linux-fr.org \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=krafft@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=parabelboi@bopserverein.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.