From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6619EC43465 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 17:00:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 850C22084C for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 17:00:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="KSBzV2lo" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 850C22084C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Bw9g03sS1zDqH1 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 03:00:28 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::444; helo=mail-wr1-x444.google.com; envelope-from=asml.silence@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=KSBzV2lo; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-wr1-x444.google.com (mail-wr1-x444.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::444]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Bw8cJ0gyqzDqRc for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 02:12:57 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wr1-x444.google.com with SMTP id t10so13415889wrv.1 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:12:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=to:cc:references:from:autocrypt:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k5RgKONYESk5WvaDyXPiSm78/qDZHfPWmfVg3ttgBfg=; b=KSBzV2lo8cnmuvyEaOkVa90ube9JyAwhNzQ6SjrJ8mWdOMU0ZcGzdq+vT6njSGIvE2 UslULTxRFp0Q9zf28wwjuZmlCnDz2zJEjMripFnDNBw+v97xIQqQqpf9Fo/O/SHKE1QO 8/S2ZC/i9ShJMf3wE5z1T9QKE60kJV1amAByt13tTiGSE85p563qJ96uTzRDOmRqneJE Fm1XdGjqmUpffhzagblNlbPlh6LG5u/1y914H/bKUL0ATY/LA5C8y5G9ZYMgCoH1IFYj eIUhKZiRHMK7kxwnM7yfPBCHpsKjhQOHg+bVaj2lteMmcTOGsXhTsEUshtpby23/oJIp DORA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:cc:references:from:autocrypt:subject :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k5RgKONYESk5WvaDyXPiSm78/qDZHfPWmfVg3ttgBfg=; b=Xg7YxyyaCujNwY2P/YZDDqR62uoDMnsAMORjfDYhWtzRWpDlckaGP0EYoO0NWMBXSw uSmFRbxxxHcC0rP30moCwTky5THOB5yBm8OL0+CkpsDCjNKBi24ORY+z2B7nRz14IONJ jEoFc8sc7pmdf5iCnoJP1KA2mR2q69x9yCQoxDZIO02z439IW5LQiEYO5Esfm8ireJMR 8I2b6sWdT8FyVHnduLW8jVidnZYzlZJGAauRJ9p55YyG/MN3yGA+xMp1/POFiePsSrdp 59FrGFYgfa4is5b66C/cZHv73PXvYOB1XG7UiPLLZ8f6lAOnzRtexiPls3044Oj+zPVQ MsNw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532gp3L1UJBgb1ELkRyeGbwGye88dStXZT144NeaTmnvYp6+LC2U ixwSb5C6LbrvIJQ4ZdsNxzk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwep7p3WKBoCBxJxiupB/7FZsxW6Ld/QPB+qZnLfoEMIt0xJkj549/omV4mOkMT/3+xHRa8ig== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4a0e:: with SMTP id m14mr518600wrq.313.1600704773004; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:12:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.43.240] ([5.100.192.97]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b18sm22480621wrn.21.2020.09.21.09.12.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:12:52 -0700 (PDT) To: Andy Lutomirski , Arnd Bergmann References: From: Pavel Begunkov Autocrypt: addr=asml.silence@gmail.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFmKBOQBEAC76ZFxLAKpDw0bKQ8CEiYJRGn8MHTUhURL02/7n1t0HkKQx2K1fCXClbps bdwSHrhOWdW61pmfMbDYbTj6ZvGRvhoLWfGkzujB2wjNcbNTXIoOzJEGISHaPf6E2IQx1ik9 6uqVkK1OMb7qRvKH0i7HYP4WJzYbEWVyLiAxUj611mC9tgd73oqZ2pLYzGTqF2j6a/obaqha +hXuWTvpDQXqcOZJXIW43atprH03G1tQs7VwR21Q1eq6Yvy2ESLdc38EqCszBfQRMmKy+cfp W3U9Mb1w0L680pXrONcnlDBCN7/sghGeMHjGKfNANjPc+0hzz3rApPxpoE7HC1uRiwC4et83 CKnncH1l7zgeBT9Oa3qEiBlaa1ZCBqrA4dY+z5fWJYjMpwI1SNp37RtF8fKXbKQg+JuUjAa9 Y6oXeyEvDHMyJYMcinl6xCqCBAXPHnHmawkMMgjr3BBRzODmMr+CPVvnYe7BFYfoajzqzq+h EyXSl3aBf0IDPTqSUrhbmjj5OEOYgRW5p+mdYtY1cXeK8copmd+fd/eTkghok5li58AojCba jRjp7zVOLOjDlpxxiKhuFmpV4yWNh5JJaTbwCRSd04sCcDNlJj+TehTr+o1QiORzc2t+N5iJ NbILft19Izdn8U39T5oWiynqa1qCLgbuFtnYx1HlUq/HvAm+kwARAQABtDFQYXZlbCBCZWd1 bmtvdiAoc2lsZW5jZSkgPGFzbWwuc2lsZW5jZUBnbWFpbC5jb20+iQJOBBMBCAA4FiEE+6Ju PTjTbx479o3OWt5b1Glr+6UFAlmKBOQCGwMFCwkIBwIGFQgJCgsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ Wt5b1Glr+6WxZA//QueaKHzgdnOikJ7NA/Vq8FmhRlwgtP0+E+w93kL+ZGLzS/cUCIjn2f4Q Mcutj2Neg0CcYPX3b2nJiKr5Vn0rjJ/suiaOa1h1KzyNTOmxnsqE5fmxOf6C6x+NKE18I5Jy xzLQoktbdDVA7JfB1itt6iWSNoOTVcvFyvfe5ggy6FSCcP+m1RlR58XxVLH+qlAvxxOeEr/e aQfUzrs7gqdSd9zQGEZo0jtuBiB7k98t9y0oC9Jz0PJdvaj1NZUgtXG9pEtww3LdeXP/TkFl HBSxVflzeoFaj4UAuy8+uve7ya/ECNCc8kk0VYaEjoVrzJcYdKP583iRhOLlZA6HEmn/+Gh9 4orG67HNiJlbFiW3whxGizWsrtFNLsSP1YrEReYk9j1SoUHHzsu+ZtNfKuHIhK0sU07G1OPN 2rDLlzUWR9Jc22INAkhVHOogOcc5ajMGhgWcBJMLCoi219HlX69LIDu3Y34uIg9QPZIC2jwr 24W0kxmK6avJr7+n4o8m6sOJvhlumSp5TSNhRiKvAHB1I2JB8Q1yZCIPzx+w1ALxuoWiCdwV M/azguU42R17IuBzK0S3hPjXpEi2sK/k4pEPnHVUv9Cu09HCNnd6BRfFGjo8M9kZvw360gC1 reeMdqGjwQ68o9x0R7NBRrtUOh48TDLXCANAg97wjPoy37dQE7e5Ag0EWYoE5AEQAMWS+aBV IJtCjwtfCOV98NamFpDEjBMrCAfLm7wZlmXy5I6o7nzzCxEw06P2rhzp1hIqkaab1kHySU7g dkpjmQ7Jjlrf6KdMP87mC/Hx4+zgVCkTQCKkIxNE76Ff3O9uTvkWCspSh9J0qPYyCaVta2D1 Sq5HZ8WFcap71iVO1f2/FEHKJNz/YTSOS/W7dxJdXl2eoj3gYX2UZNfoaVv8OXKaWslZlgqN jSg9wsTv1K73AnQKt4fFhscN9YFxhtgD/SQuOldE5Ws4UlJoaFX/yCoJL3ky2kC0WFngzwRF Yo6u/KON/o28yyP+alYRMBrN0Dm60FuVSIFafSqXoJTIjSZ6olbEoT0u17Rag8BxnxryMrgR dkccq272MaSS0eOC9K2rtvxzddohRFPcy/8bkX+t2iukTDz75KSTKO+chce62Xxdg62dpkZX xK+HeDCZ7gRNZvAbDETr6XI63hPKi891GeZqvqQVYR8e+V2725w+H1iv3THiB1tx4L2bXZDI DtMKQ5D2RvCHNdPNcZeldEoJwKoA60yg6tuUquvsLvfCwtrmVI2rL2djYxRfGNmFMrUDN1Xq F3xozA91q3iZd9OYi9G+M/OA01husBdcIzj1hu0aL+MGg4Gqk6XwjoSxVd4YT41kTU7Kk+/I 5/Nf+i88ULt6HanBYcY/+Daeo/XFABEBAAGJAjYEGAEIACAWIQT7om49ONNvHjv2jc5a3lvU aWv7pQUCWYoE5AIbDAAKCRBa3lvUaWv7pfmcEACKTRQ28b1y5ztKuLdLr79+T+LwZKHjX++P 4wKjEOECCcB6KCv3hP+J2GCXDOPZvdg/ZYZafqP68Yy8AZqkfa4qPYHmIdpODtRzZSL48kM8 LRzV8Rl7J3ItvzdBRxf4T/Zseu5U6ELiQdCUkPGsJcPIJkgPjO2ROG/ZtYa9DvnShNWPlp+R uPwPccEQPWO/NP4fJl2zwC6byjljZhW5kxYswGMLBwb5cDUZAisIukyAa8Xshdan6C2RZcNs rB3L7vsg/R8UCehxOH0C+NypG2GqjVejNZsc7bgV49EOVltS+GmGyY+moIzxsuLmT93rqyII 5rSbbcTLe6KBYcs24XEoo49Zm9oDA3jYvNpeYD8rDcnNbuZh9kTgBwFN41JHOPv0W2FEEWqe JsCwQdcOQ56rtezdCJUYmRAt3BsfjN3Jn3N6rpodi4Dkdli8HylM5iq4ooeb5VkQ7UZxbCWt UVMKkOCdFhutRmYp0mbv2e87IK4erwNHQRkHUkzbsuym8RVpAZbLzLPIYK/J3RTErL6Z99N2 m3J6pjwSJY/zNwuFPs9zGEnRO4g0BUbwGdbuvDzaq6/3OJLKohr5eLXNU3JkT+3HezydWm3W OPhauth7W0db74Qd49HXK0xe/aPrK+Cp+kU1HRactyNtF8jZQbhMCC8vMGukZtWaAwpjWiiH bA== Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE_COMPAT flag Message-ID: <563138b5-7073-74bc-f0c5-b2bad6277e87@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:10:20 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-aio , "open list:MIPS" , David Howells , Linux-MM , keyrings@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux , Christoph Hellwig , linux-arch , linux-s390 , Linux SCSI List , X86 ML , linux-block , Al Viro , Andy Lutomirski , io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel , Jens Axboe , Parisc List , Network Development , LKML , LSM List , Linux FS Devel , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 20/09/2020 01:22, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> On Sep 19, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 6:21 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:16 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 02:58:22PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: >>>>> Said that, why not provide a variant that would take an explicit >>>>> "is it compat" argument and use it there? And have the normal >>>>> one pass in_compat_syscall() to that... >>>> >>>> That would help to not introduce a regression with this series yes. >>>> But it wouldn't fix existing bugs when io_uring is used to access >>>> read or write methods that use in_compat_syscall(). One example that >>>> I recently ran into is drivers/scsi/sg.c. >> >> Ah, so reading /dev/input/event* would suffer from the same issue, >> and that one would in fact be broken by your patch in the hypothetical >> case that someone tried to use io_uring to read /dev/input/event on x32... >> >> For reference, I checked the socket timestamp handling that has a >> number of corner cases with time32/time64 formats in compat mode, >> but none of those appear to be affected by the problem. >> >>> Aside from the potentially nasty use of per-task variables, one thing >>> I don't like about PF_FORCE_COMPAT is that it's one-way. If we're >>> going to have a generic mechanism for this, shouldn't we allow a full >>> override of the syscall arch instead of just allowing forcing compat >>> so that a compat syscall can do a non-compat operation? >> >> The only reason it's needed here is that the caller is in a kernel >> thread rather than a system call. Are there any possible scenarios >> where one would actually need the opposite? >> > > I can certainly imagine needing to force x32 mode from a kernel thread. > > As for the other direction: what exactly are the desired bitness/arch semantics of io_uring? Is the operation bitness chosen by the io_uring creation or by the io_uring_enter() bitness? It's rather the second one. Even though AFAIR it wasn't discussed specifically, that how it works now (_partially_). -- Pavel Begunkov