Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:44:20 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <>
To: Stefano Garzarella <>
Cc: Aleksa Sarai <>,
 Kernel Hardening <>,
 Jann Horn <>,,
 Christian Brauner <>,, Alexander Viro <>,
 Stefan Hajnoczi <>,,
 Sargun Dhillon <>, Kees Cook <>,
 Jeff Moyer <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] io_uring: add restrictions to support untrusted
 applications and guests

On 8/27/20 8:41 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 08:10:49AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 8/27/20 8:10 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 07:50:44AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 8/27/20 7:40 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>>>> v5:
>>>>>  - explicitly assigned enum values [Kees]
>>>>>  - replaced kmalloc/copy_from_user with memdup_user [kernel test robot]
>>>>>  - added Kees' R-b tags
>>>>> v4:
>>>>> v3:
>>>>> RFC v2:
>>>>> RFC v1:
>>>>> Following the proposal that I send about restrictions [1], I wrote this series
>>>>> to add restrictions in io_uring.
>>>>> I also wrote helpers in liburing and a test case (test/register-restrictions.c)
>>>>> available in this repository:
>>>>> (branch: io_uring_restrictions)
>>>>> Just to recap the proposal, the idea is to add some restrictions to the
>>>>> operations (sqe opcode and flags, register opcode) to safely allow untrusted
>>>>> applications or guests to use io_uring queues.
>>>>> The first patch changes io_uring_register(2) opcodes into an enumeration to
>>>>> keep track of the last opcode available.
>>>>> The second patch adds IOURING_REGISTER_RESTRICTIONS opcode and the code to
>>>>> handle restrictions.
>>>>> The third patch adds IORING_SETUP_R_DISABLED flag to start the rings disabled,
>>>>> allowing the user to register restrictions, buffers, files, before to start
>>>>> processing SQEs.
>>>>> Comments and suggestions are very welcome.
>>>> Looks good to me, just a few very minor comments in patch 2. If you
>>>> could fix those up, let's get this queued for 5.10.
>>> Sure, I'll fix the issues. This is great :-)
>> Thanks! I'll pull in your liburing tests as well once we get the kernel
>> side sorted.
> Yeah. Let me know if you'd prefer that I send patches on io-uring ML.
> About io-uring UAPI, do you think we should set explicitly the enum
> values also for IOSQE_*_BIT and IORING_OP_*?
> I can send a separated patch for this.

No, I actually think that change was a little bit silly. If you
inadvertently renumber the enum in a patch, then tests would fail left
and right. Hence I don't think this is a real risk. I'm fine with doing
it for the addition, but doing it for the others is just going to cause
stable headaches for patches.

Jens Axboe

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.