On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:19 AM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 04:31:50 +1100
>
>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:03 AM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> From: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 02:27:49 -0800
>>>
>>>> @@ -343,6 +343,14 @@ struct ucred {
>>>>
>>>> extern int move_addr_to_kernel(void __user *uaddr, int ulen, struct sockaddr_storage *kaddr);
>>>> extern int put_cmsg(struct msghdr*, int level, int type, int len, void *data);
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Provide a bounce buffer for copying cmsg data to userspace when the
>>>> + * target memory isn't already whitelisted for hardened usercopy.
>>>> + */
>>>> +#define put_cmsg_whitelist(_msg, _level, _type, _ptr) ({ \
>>>> + typeof(*(_ptr)) _val = *(_ptr); \
>>>> + put_cmsg(_msg, _level, _type, sizeof(_val), &_val); \
>>>> + })
>>>
>>> I understand what you are trying to achieve, but it's at a real cost
>>> here. Some of these objects are structures, for example the struct
>>> sock_extended_err is 16 bytes.
>>
>> It didn't look like put_cmsg() was on a fast path, so it seemed like a
>> bounce buffer was the best solution here (and it's not without
>> precedent).
>
> For some things like timestamps it can be important.
Making put_cmsg() inline would help quite a bit with tracking the
builtin_const-ness, and that could speed things up a little bit too.
Would you be opposed to inlining?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
