Re: [PATCH] sg, bsg: mitigate read/write abuse, block uaccess in release

Jann Horn
2018-07-10T20:54:05Z

On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 7:58 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 08:07:23AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > I'd be fine with that, if we knew that nobody uses it. But that's
> > really hard to figure out. I did see Jann's source code scan, which
> > even if non-exhaustive, still shows at least one user of it.
>
> One is an example, and the other looks very close to an example,
> as far as I can tell it was Nic doing a bsg read/write WIP for a
> tgt module without anyone every picking up on it. I did add the tgt
> list to Cc and no one seemed to care about the bsg read/write support.
> Adding the tgt list back, but I doubt anyone ever actually used it.
>
> > How about we just make the write interface sync? Then any copy can
> > happen while the we block the task, and the read side is just
> > copying the header info back, or dumping it if the task didn't
> > read it before it went away.
>
> How is that going to work? As far as I can tell each I/O using
> bsg read/write needs a write and a read, so they need to pair
> and thus can't be a purely sync interface.
>
> It also doesn't help with the issue that bsg_write may possible
> write to user memory, which is highly unusal and asking for security
> issues itself.
>
> Either way, we should probably at very least apply a respun version
> of the patch from Jann to 4.18-rc and -stable while we keep discussing
> this.
>
> Jann, can you respin the bsg patch with the same changes as the now
> included sg one?

With the error messages like in my sg patch or like with Linus'
proposed patch (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFwg-2GP4ASTdd1pusmZkF7c8AN9febVDCaioDxzYJSLfw@mail.gmail.com/)
applied?