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: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200813153254.93731-1-sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200728160101.48554-1-sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>> RFC v2: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200716124833.93667-1-sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx >>>>> RFC v1: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200710141945.129329-1-sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx >>>>> >>>>> 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: >>>>> https://github.com/stefano-garzarella/liburing (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
