Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] IB/hfi1: Add ioctl() interface for user commands

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:43:32AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:18:47AM -0700, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
+	case HFI1_IOCTL_EP_INFO:
+	case HFI1_IOCTL_EP_ERASE_CHIP:
+	case HFI1_IOCTL_EP_ERASE_RANGE:
+	case HFI1_IOCTL_EP_READ_RANGE:
+	case HFI1_IOCTL_EP_WRITE_RANGE:
+		if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
+			return -EPERM;
+		if (copy_from_user(&ucmd,
+				   (struct hfi11_cmd __user *)arg,
+				   sizeof(ucmd)))
+			return -EFAULT;
+		return handle_eprom_command(fp, &ucmd);

I thought we agreed to get rid of this as well? It certainly does not
belong here, and as a general rule, I don't think ioctls should be
doing capable tests..

Yeah. I left it in this patch set because this just "ports" our existing code to ioctl(). The eprom stuff is completely removed in another patch set that I posted shortly after this. It's at:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-rdma&m=146307409301822&w=2

+static inline int check_ioctl_access(unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
+{
+	int read_cmd, write_cmd, read_ok, write_ok;
+
+	read_cmd = _IOC_DIR(cmd) & _IOC_READ;
+	write_cmd = _IOC_DIR(cmd) & _IOC_WRITE;
+	write_ok = access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, (void __user *)arg, _IOC_SIZE(cmd));
+	read_ok = access_ok(VERIFY_READ, (void __user *)arg, _IOC_SIZE(cmd));
+
+	if ((read_cmd && !write_ok) || (write_cmd && !read_ok))
+		return -EFAULT;

This seems kind of goofy, didn't Ira say this is performance senstive?

I'll let Ira comment here on the performance aspect. I agree it looks goofy. Suggestion on how to make it look better? Or are you saying this is incorrect?

Driver shouldn't be open coding __get_user like that, IMHO.

Can you explain what you mean here? We should not use __get_user()?


+#define HFI1_IOCTL_RECV_CTRL \
+	_IOW(IB_IOCTL_MAGIC, HFI1_CMD_RECV_CTRL, int)

Have you audited this? Confused why this is marked IOW when I see
this:

+       case HFI1_IOCTL_RECV_CTRL:
+               ret = __get_user(uval, (int __user *)arg);

Seeing many other examples.

I stopped looking again

_IOW means user is writing data to the device. So the device is reading data from the user. Or am I missing your point?

-Denny
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux