From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <email@example.com>
To: Kees Cook <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Al Viro <email@example.com>,
Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Michal Hocko <email@example.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Lee Duncan <email@example.com>, Chris Leech <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Adam Nichols <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] seq_file: Unconditionally use vmalloc for buffer
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:44:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YFHdj+/65XO78J06@kroah.com> (raw)
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:18:33PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:43:12PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 08:24:50AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > Completely agreed. seq_get_buf() should be totally ripped out.
> > > > Unfortunately, this is going to be a long road because of sysfs's ATTR
> > > > stuff, there are something like 5000 callers, and the entire API was
> > > > designed to avoid refactoring all those callers from
> > > > sysfs_kf_seq_show().
> > >
> > > What is wrong with the sysfs ATTR stuff? That should make it so that we
> > > do not have to change any caller for any specific change like this, why
> > > can't sysfs or kernfs handle it automatically?
> > Hard to tell, since that would require _finding_ the sodding ->show()
> > instances first. Good luck with that, seeing that most of those appear
> > to come from templates-done-with-cpp...
> I *think* I can get coccinelle to find them all, but my brute-force
> approach was to just do a debug build changing the ATTR macro to be
> typed, and changing the name of "show" and "store" in kobj_attribute
> (to make the compiler find them all).
> > AFAICS, Kees wants to protect against ->show() instances stomping beyond
> > the page size. What I don't get is what do you get from using seq_file
> > if you insist on doing raw access to the buffer rather than using
> > seq_printf() and friends. What's the point?
> To me, it looks like the kernfs/sysfs API happened around the time
> "container_of" was gaining ground. It's trying to do the same thing
> the "modern" callbacks do with finding a pointer from another, but it
> did so by making sure everything had a 0 offset and an identical
> beginning structure layout _but changed prototypes_.
> It's the changed prototypes that freaks out CFI.
> My current plan consists of these steps:
> - add two new callbacks to the kobj_attribute struct (and its clones):
> "seq_show" and "seq_store", which will pass in the seq_file.
Ick, why? Why should the callback care about seq_file? Shouldn't any
wrapper logic in the kobject code be able to handle this automatically?
> - convert all callbacks to kobject/kboj_attribute and use container_of()
> to find their respective pointers.
Which callbacks are you talking about here?
> - remove "show" and "store"
> - remove external use of seq_get_buf().
So is this the main goal? I still don't understand the sequence file
problem here, what am I missing (becides the CFI stuff that is)?
> The first two steps require thousands of lines of code changed, so
> I'm going to try to minimize it by trying to do as many conversions as
> possible to the appropriate helpers first. e.g. DEVICE_ATTR_INT exists,
> but there are only 2 users, yet there appears to be something like 500
> DEVICE_ATTR callers that have an open-coded '%d':
> $ git grep -B10 '\bDEVICE_ATTR' | grep '%d' | wc -l
That's going to be hard, and a pain, and I really doubt all that useful
as I still can't figure out why this is needed...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-17 10:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-15 17:48 [PATCH v2] seq_file: Unconditionally use vmalloc for buffer Kees Cook
2021-03-15 18:33 ` Al Viro
2021-03-15 20:43 ` Kees Cook
2021-03-16 7:24 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-03-16 12:43 ` Al Viro
2021-03-16 12:55 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-03-16 13:01 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-16 19:18 ` Kees Cook
2021-03-17 10:44 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2021-03-16 8:31 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-16 19:08 ` Kees Cook
2021-03-17 12:08 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-17 13:34 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-03-17 14:44 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-17 14:56 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-03-17 15:20 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-17 15:38 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-03-17 15:48 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-17 21:30 ` Kees Cook
2021-03-18 8:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-03-18 15:51 ` Kees Cook
2021-03-18 17:56 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-03-19 14:07 ` [seq_file] 5fd6060e50: stress-ng.eventfd.ops_per_sec -49.1% regression kernel test robot
2021-03-19 19:31 ` Kees Cook
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).