From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@coreos.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH] Allow userspace to request device probing even if defer_all_probes is true
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 21:03:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170104200319.GA26503@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPeXnHtyXVvDGpJeUHsLES2FVVD7r_EWmzPwC6pO=2+W3eo-Kw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 01:53:45PM -0600, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:11:49PM -0600, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Userspace doesn't know the order that the kernel will use when
> >> attempting to bind drivers, so punting binding out to userspace may
> >> result in different behaviour.
> >
> > How can the order in which drivers are bound result in different
> > behavior?
>
> If you have two loaded drivers that could bind to the device then the
> order you attempt to bind them in will matter.
If you have that, you are screwed no matter what. The driver model
never guarantees any order in which a driver and device is matched up,
sorry, and if that's the goal of this patch somehow, then I'll strongly
object to it.
What in-kernel drivers do we have that bind to the same device? We
shouldn't have that, because of this very issue.
> >> The kernel already has the code to do this, so we should just reuse
> >> it.
> >
> > That's fine, but I don't understand the problem you are trying to solve,
> > please explain better. What am I missing here?
>
> If you plug in a device while defer_all_probes is true, it won't be
> bound - that's the point. But if you have a USB keyboard and unplug it
> and plug it, you'd then end up with no keyboard. So you want userspace
> to be able to make an appropriate policy decision around which devices
> should be bound, and you need a mechanism to allow userspace to
> trigger that binding.
Use the in-place mechanism for that, userspace gets notification that
the device was plugged in, it can authorize it or not. That's what
systems have been doing for a while now, and is what that api was
created for.
I'm getting the impression that somehow these two different patches are
a series and related to each other which is even more confusing...
thanks,
greg k-h
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@coreos.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow userspace to request device probing even if defer_all_probes is true
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 21:03:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170104200319.GA26503@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPeXnHtyXVvDGpJeUHsLES2FVVD7r_EWmzPwC6pO=2+W3eo-Kw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 01:53:45PM -0600, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:11:49PM -0600, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Userspace doesn't know the order that the kernel will use when
> >> attempting to bind drivers, so punting binding out to userspace may
> >> result in different behaviour.
> >
> > How can the order in which drivers are bound result in different
> > behavior?
>
> If you have two loaded drivers that could bind to the device then the
> order you attempt to bind them in will matter.
If you have that, you are screwed no matter what. The driver model
never guarantees any order in which a driver and device is matched up,
sorry, and if that's the goal of this patch somehow, then I'll strongly
object to it.
What in-kernel drivers do we have that bind to the same device? We
shouldn't have that, because of this very issue.
> >> The kernel already has the code to do this, so we should just reuse
> >> it.
> >
> > That's fine, but I don't understand the problem you are trying to solve,
> > please explain better. What am I missing here?
>
> If you plug in a device while defer_all_probes is true, it won't be
> bound - that's the point. But if you have a USB keyboard and unplug it
> and plug it, you'd then end up with no keyboard. So you want userspace
> to be able to make an appropriate policy decision around which devices
> should be bound, and you need a mechanism to allow userspace to
> trigger that binding.
Use the in-place mechanism for that, userspace gets notification that
the device was plugged in, it can authorize it or not. That's what
systems have been doing for a while now, and is what that api was
created for.
I'm getting the impression that somehow these two different patches are
a series and related to each other which is even more confusing...
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-04 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-03 23:07 [kernel-hardening] [PATCH] Allow userspace to request device probing even if defer_all_probes is true Kees Cook
2017-01-03 23:07 ` Kees Cook
2017-01-04 9:13 ` [kernel-hardening] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2017-01-04 9:13 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2017-01-04 18:11 ` [kernel-hardening] " Matthew Garrett
2017-01-04 18:11 ` Matthew Garrett
2017-01-04 19:42 ` [kernel-hardening] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2017-01-04 19:42 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2017-01-04 19:53 ` [kernel-hardening] " Matthew Garrett
2017-01-04 19:53 ` Matthew Garrett
2017-01-04 20:03 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2017-01-04 20:03 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2017-01-04 20:06 ` [kernel-hardening] " Matthew Garrett
2017-01-04 20:06 ` Matthew Garrett
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=20170104200319.GA26503@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@coreos.com \
/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.