[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180128202128.GI13338@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 20:21:28 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] syscalls: Add a bit of documentation to
__SYSCALL_DEFINE
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:15:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Is that "long long" part of the example on purpose? Because that's
> likely the only really nasty part about any ptregs wrapper: some
> arguments aren't _one_ register, they are two. And "long long" is the
> simplest example, even though in practice the type is most often
> "loff_t".
>
> You won't see this on 64-bit architectures, but it's visible on 32-bit ones.
>
> We may have to do wrappers for those, and error out for 'long long'.
> We already do that for some cases, for compat system calls. See for
> example
>
> COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE5(preadv, compat_ulong_t, fd,
> const struct compat_iovec __user *,vec,
> compat_ulong_t, vlen, u32, pos_low, u32, pos_high)
> {
> loff_t pos = ((loff_t)pos_high << 32) | pos_low;
>
> return do_compat_preadv64(fd, vec, vlen, pos, 0);
> }
>
> where we have the issue of a 64-bit value being split over two
> registers even on 64-bit, due to it being a compat interface for 32
> bit.
>
> But if we pick up the values by hand from ptregs in a wrapper, we'll
> have this issue even for native calls on 32-bit.
... and have more of that logics arch-dependent than one might expect;
it's *not* just "split each 64bit argument into a pair of 32bit ones,
combine in the body". I tried to do something to reduce the amount of
remaining wrappers several years ago. Trying to automate that gets
very ugly very fast - there are architectures like mips where you get
alignment requirements ($6/$7 can hold that, $5/$6 can't), creating
padding arguments, etc.
FWIW, that affects
lookup_dcookie() (64,32,32)
truncate64(), ftruncate64() (32,64)
fadvise64_64(), sync_file_range() (32,64,64,32)
readahead() (32,64,32)
fadvise64() (32,64,32,32)
fallocate(), sync_file_range2() (32,32,64,64)
fanotify_mark() (32,32,64,32,32)
pread64(), pwrite64() (32,32,32,64)
Giving each of those a compat wrapper of its own is already annoying
(looking at that again, we should at least unify pread64() and pwrite64()
compat wrappers - grep for sys_pread64 and you'll see), but giving
each an explicit wrapper for native ones? Ouch.
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.
