From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Piekarski <t.piekarski@deloquencia.de>
Cc: linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
victorm007@yahoo.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iopl.2: Changing description of permissions set per-process to per-thread
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 15:57:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKgNAkhDwbBMx+2A06Y7nUnLB7vgZ42Bnh84TXaqh2dx8nKqgA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45693d06-c780-890f-8e5a-d22267722b29@deloquencia.de>
[CC += Thomas Gleixner]
Thomas G,
I expect that the small change at Thomas P proposes in this patch is
correct (i.e., iopl(2) operates per-thread, not per-process). I
remember that you touch the relevant kernel source file often. Perhaps
you are able to give a quick Ack?
Thanks,
Michael
On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 15:22, Thomas Piekarski
<t.piekarski@deloquencia.de> wrote:
>
> iopl is setting permissions for port-mapped I/O not per-process but only
> for threads and its children.
>
> See https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205317
>
> Reported-by: victorm007@yahoo.com
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Piekarski <t.piekarski@deloquencia.de>
>
>
> ---
>
>
> 1. Test case if permissions are granted per-process or per-thread
>
> I took the opportunity to dig into PMIO and granting permissions with
> iopl and ioperm.
>
> Wrote the following code in which two threads are created and try to
> read some data with inb(). First thread (read_from_sleepy_child) is
> created before permissions are granted (but is delayed) and the second
> one (read_from_child) after that.
>
> If those permissions would be granted on process level should the first
> thread not succeed?
>
> I hope I did not make any mistake, applied threading well and can solve
> this issue as well as support the discussion at LKML.
>
> 2. Test Code
>
> #include <pthread.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <sys/io.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> #define PORT 0x378 // lp0
>
> void *read_from_sleepy_child()
> {
> sleep(3);
>
> // The inb() will fail due to missing permissions and it'll segfault
> // although permissions are acquired before threads are joined.
> // When permissions are set per process this should work.
> printf("Read anything from (sleepy) child thread (%x).\n", inb(PORT));
>
> return NULL;
> }
>
> void *read_from_child()
> {
> // The inb() will succeed due to permissions are inherited to
> // childs after they got acquired with either iopl or ioperm
> printf("Read anything from child thread (%x).\n", inb(PORT));
>
> return NULL;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> pthread_t delayed_thread, thread;
>
> pthread_create(&delayed_thread, NULL, read_from_sleepy_child, NULL);
>
> iopl(3);
> // ioperm(0, 0xFFFF, 1); // the same segfault
>
> // The inb() will succeed due to being the main, default thread
> // where permissions got acquired in first place
> printf("Read anything from main thread (%x).\n", inb(PORT));
>
> pthread_create(&thread, NULL, read_from_child, NULL);
> pthread_join(delayed_thread, NULL);
> pthread_join(thread, NULL);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> 3. Patch
>
> man2/iopl.2 | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/man2/iopl.2 b/man2/iopl.2
> index e5b216a14..329095808 100644
> --- a/man2/iopl.2
> +++ b/man2/iopl.2
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ iopl \- change I/O privilege level
> .BI "int iopl(int " level );
> .SH DESCRIPTION
> .BR iopl ()
> -changes the I/O privilege level of the calling process,
> +changes the I/O privilege level of the calling thread,
> as specified by the two least significant bits in
> .IR level .
> .PP
> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ Since these X servers require access to all 65536 I/O
> ports, the
> call is not sufficient.
> .PP
> In addition to granting unrestricted I/O port access, running at a higher
> -I/O privilege level also allows the process to disable interrupts.
> +I/O privilege level also allows the thread to disable interrupts.
> This will probably crash the system, and is not recommended.
> .PP
> Permissions are not inherited by the child process created by
> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ is greater than 3.
> This call is unimplemented.
> .TP
> .B EPERM
> -The calling process has insufficient privilege to call
> +The calling thread has insufficient privilege to call
> .BR iopl ();
> the
> .B CAP_SYS_RAWIO
> --
> 2.20.1
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-25 13:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-24 13:22 [PATCH] iopl.2: Changing description of permissions set per-process to per-thread Thomas Piekarski
2020-05-25 13:57 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) [this message]
2020-05-28 13:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-28 14:52 ` Thomas Piekarski
2020-06-24 9:53 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-06-26 20:29 ` [PATCH-v2] iopl.2: Updating description of permissions and disabling interrupts Thomas Piekarski
2020-06-29 11:49 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAKgNAkhDwbBMx+2A06Y7nUnLB7vgZ42Bnh84TXaqh2dx8nKqgA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=t.piekarski@deloquencia.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=victorm007@yahoo.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).