|
Message-ID: <20230228205155.GL4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:51:55 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] accept4: don't fall back to accept if we got unknown flags On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:15:06PM +0300, Alexey Izbyshev wrote: > On 2023-02-28 20:25, Rich Felker wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:21:01PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > >>On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 02:42:39AM +0300, Alexey Izbyshev wrote: > >>> On 2023-02-28 01:38, Rich Felker wrote: > >>> >On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 10:46:54PM +0300, Alexey Izbyshev wrote: > >>> >>accept4 emulation via accept ignores unknown flags, so it can > >>> >>spuriously > >>> >>succeed instead of failing (or succeed without doing the action > >>> >>implied > >>> >>by an unknown flag if it's added in a future kernel). Worse, unknown > >>> >>flags trigger the fallback code even on modern kernels if the real > >>> >>accept4 syscall returns EINVAL, because this is indistinguishable from > >>> >>socketcall returning EINVAL due to lack of accept4 support. Fix > >>> >>this by > >>> >>always propagating the syscall attempt failure if unknown flags are > >>> >>present. > >>> >> > >>> >>The behavior is still not ideal on old kernels lacking accept4 > >>> >>on arches > >>> >>with socketcall, where failing with ENOSYS instead of EINVAL > >>> >>returned by > >>> >>socketcall would be preferable, but at least modern kernels are now > >>> >>fine. > >>> > > >>> >Can you clarify what you mean about ENOSYS vs EINVAL here? I'm not > >>> >following. > >>> > > >>> Sorry for confusion, I meant the following. On arches with > >>> socketcall, if a program running on an old kernel that doesn't > >>> support accept4 in any form calls accept4 with unknown flags, musl's > >>> accept4 will fail with EINVAL after this patch. But the reason of > >>> failure remains unclear to the programmer: is it because some flag > >>> is not supported or because accept4 is not supported at all? So I > >>> thought it'd be better to fail with ENOSYS in this case instead, > >>> although I don't know a good way to do that: the EINVAL ambiguity > >>> exists at socketcall level too, so testing whether the kernel's > >>> socketcall supports __SC_accept4 or not would probably involve > >>> calling it with known-good arguments on a separately created socket, > >>> and I certainly don't propose to do that. > >>> > >>> On the other hand, it could be argued that a function that can > >>> emulate a certain baseline feature set of another function shouldn't > >>> fail with ENOSYS at all because the real function would never do > >>> that. The two cleanest options for possibly-not-supported functions > >>> seem to be either always failing with ENOSYS if the kernel doesn't > >>> support the syscall or failing with a reasonable error if the caller > >>> requests something unsupported by the emulation. And I think accept4 > >>> satisfies the latter with this patch. > >>> > >>> As an aside, note that dup3 and pipe2 currently also ignore unknown > >>> flags on old kernels, and for pipe2 there is a valid flag (O_DIRECT) > >>> that could be silently ignored because of that. But there is no > >>> issue on newer kernels supporting the syscalls, unlike for accept4. > >> > >>The dup3 situation is even worse than you thought. The dup3 syscall is > >>only attempted if O_CLOEXEC is set in flags. If not, the rest of flags > >>are ignored and the dup2 syscall is made. I'll make a fix. > > > Indeed, I missed that, thanks. > > >These should fix both.. > > The patches look good to me. > > But looking at dup3 more closely, I've noticed another bug: fcntl is > called even if SYS_dup2 fails. So on kernels where SYS_dup3 is > unavailable, dup3(-1, fd, O_CLOEXEC) will wrongly try to set > FD_CLOEXEC on fd. Thanks for catching that. I'll fix it too. Rich
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.