From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>,
Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>,
Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>, Kees Cook <[email protected]>,
Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>,
Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>,
Jann Horn <[email protected]>,
Christian Brauner <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
Linux API <[email protected]>,
Linux FS Devel <[email protected]>,
LKML <[email protected]>,
Michael Kerrisk <[email protected]>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: strace of io_uring events?
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:39:20 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUvOuKZWiQeZhf9DXyjS4OQdyW+s1YMh+vwe605jBS3LQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 7/21/20 11:44 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:30 AM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/21/20 11:23 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 8:31 AM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7/21/20 9:27 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 08:12:35AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 03:14:04PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> access (IIUC) is possible without actually calling any of the io_uring
>>>>>>> syscalls. Is that correct? A process would receive an fd (via SCM_RIGHTS,
>>>>>>> pidfd_getfd, or soon seccomp addfd), and then call mmap() on it to gain
>>>>>>> access to the SQ and CQ, and off it goes? (The only glitch I see is
>>>>>>> waking up the worker thread?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is true only if the io_uring istance is created with SQPOLL flag (not the
>>>>>> default behaviour and it requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN). In this case the
>>>>>> kthread is created and you can also set an higher idle time for it, so
>>>>>> also the waking up syscall can be avoided.
>>>>>
>>>>> I stared at the io_uring code for a while, and I'm wondering if we're
>>>>> approaching this the wrong way. It seems to me that most of the
>>>>> complications here come from the fact that io_uring SQEs don't clearly
>>>>> belong to any particular security principle. (We have struct creds,
>>>>> but we don't really have a task or mm.) But I'm also not convinced
>>>>> that io_uring actually supports cross-mm submission except by accident
>>>>> -- as it stands, unless a user is very careful to only submit SQEs
>>>>> that don't use user pointers, the results will be unpredictable.
>>>>
>>>> How so?
>>>
>>> Unless I've missed something, either current->mm or sqo_mm will be
>>> used depending on which thread ends up doing the IO. (And there might
>>> be similar issues with threads.) Having the user memory references
>>> end up somewhere that is an implementation detail seems suboptimal.
>>
>> current->mm is always used from the entering task - obviously if done
>> synchronously, but also if it needs to go async. The only exception is a
>> setup with SQPOLL, in which case ctx->sqo_mm is the task that set up the
>> ring. SQPOLL requires root privileges to setup, and there's no task
>> entering the io_uring at all necessarily. It'll just submit sqes with
>> the credentials that are registered with the ring.
>
> Really? I admit I haven't fully followed how the code works, but it
> looks like anything that goes through the io_queue_async_work() path
> will use sqo_mm, and can't most requests that end up blocking end up
> there? It looks like, even if SQPOLL is not set, the mm used will
> depend on whether the request ends up blocking and thus getting queued
> for later completion.
>
> Or does some magic I missed make this a nonissue.
No, you are wrong. The logic works as I described it.
>> This is just one known use case, there may very well be others. Outside
>> of SQPOLL, which is special, I don't see a reason to restrict this.
>> Given that you may have a fuller understanding of it after the above
>> explanation, please clearly state what problem you're seeing that
>> warrants a change.
>
> I see two fundamental issues:
>
> 1. The above. This may be less of an issue than it seems to me, but,
> if you submit io from outside sqo_mm, the mm that ends up being used
> depends on whether the IO is completed from io_uring_enter() or from
> the workqueue. For something like Postgres, I guess this is okay
> because the memory is MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED and the pointers all
> point the same place regardless.
No that is incorrect. If you disregard SQPOLL, then the 'mm' is always
who submitted it.
> 2. If you create an io_uring and io_uring_enter() it from a different
> mm, it's unclear what seccomp is supposed to do. (Or audit, for that
> matter.) Which task did the IO? Which mm did the IO? Whose sandbox
> is supposed to be applied?
Also doesn't seem like a problem, if you understand the 'mm' logic
above. Unless SQPOLL is used, the entering tasks mm will be used.
There's no mixing of tasks and mm outside of that.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-21 18:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-15 11:12 strace of io_uring events? Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-15 14:35 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-15 17:11 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-07-15 19:42 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-15 20:09 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-15 20:20 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-15 23:07 ` Kees Cook
2020-07-16 13:14 ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-07-16 15:12 ` Kees Cook
2020-07-17 8:01 ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-07-21 15:27 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-21 15:31 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-21 17:23 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-21 17:30 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-21 17:44 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-21 18:39 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-07-21 19:44 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-21 19:48 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-21 19:56 ` Andres Freund
2020-07-21 19:37 ` Andres Freund
2020-07-21 15:58 ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-07-23 10:39 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-07-23 13:37 ` Colin Walters
2020-07-24 7:25 ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-07-16 13:17 ` Aleksa Sarai
2020-07-16 15:19 ` Kees Cook
2020-07-17 8:17 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-07-16 16:24 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-16 0:12 ` tytso
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 \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/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