From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751561AbdEJDWZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 23:22:25 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:51152 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750946AbdEJDWY (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 23:22:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 04:21:37 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Ingo Molnar , Greg KH , Thomas Garnier , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Dave Hansen , Arnd Bergmann , Thomas Gleixner , David Howells , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9?= Nyffenegger , Andrew Morton , "Paul E . McKenney" , "Eric W . Biederman" , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Tikhomirov , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , Paolo Bonzini , Rik van Riel , Kees Cook , Josh Poimboeuf , Borislav Petkov , Brian Gerst , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Christian Borntraeger , Russell King , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Mark Rutland , James Morse , linux-s390 , LKML , Linux API , the arch/x86 maintainers , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Kernel Hardening , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning to user-mode Message-ID: <20170510032137.GD390@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20170508073352.caqe3fqf7nuxypgi@gmail.com> <20170508124621.GA20705@kroah.com> <20170509064522.anusoikaalvlux3w@gmail.com> <20170509085659.GA32555@infradead.org> <20170509130250.GA11381@infradead.org> <20170509160322.GA15902@infradead.org> <20170510021118.GA390@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20170510024524.GB390@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20170510031254.GC390@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20170510031254.GC390@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:12:54AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > Broken commit: "net: don't play with address limits in kernel_recvmsg". > It would be OK if it was only about data. Unfortunately, that's not > true in one case: svc_udp_recvfrom() wants ->msg_control. > > Another delicate place: you can't assume that write() always advances > file position by its (positive) return value. btrfs stuff is sensitive > to that. > > ashmem probably _is_ OK with demanding ->read_iter(), but I'm not sure > about blind asma->file->f_pos += ret. That's begging for races. Actually, > scratch that - it *is* racy. kvec_length(): please, don't. I would rather have the last remaining iov_length() gone... What do you need it for, anyway? You have only two users and both have the count passed to them (as *count and *cnt resp.)