|
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJ6=XXuCD7zm8NuKAy+-Ra3F2SyD+CVFjJ=-kQoXPty-A@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:05:14 -0800 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>, Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>, "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/38] ext4: Define usercopy region in ext4_inode_cache slab cache On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 06:02:45PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: >> The ext4 symlink pathnames, stored in struct ext4_inode_info.i_data >> and therefore contained in the ext4_inode_cache slab cache, need >> to be copied to/from userspace. > > Symlink operations to/from userspace aren't common or in the hot path, > and when they are in i_data, limited to at most 60 bytes. Is it worth > it to copy through a bounce buffer so as to disallow any usercopies > into struct ext4_inode_info? If this is the only place it's exposed, yeah, that might be a way to avoid the per-FS patches. This would, AIUI, require changing readlink_copy() to include a bounce buffer, and that would require an allocation. I kind of prefer just leaving the per-FS whitelists, as then there's no global overhead added. -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.