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/[email protected]/
>>> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/[email protected]/
>>> RFC v2: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/[email protected]
>>> RFC v1: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/[email protected]
>>>
>>> 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.
--
Jens Axboe
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/[email protected]/
> >>> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/[email protected]/
> >>> RFC v2: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/[email protected]
> >>> RFC v1: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/[email protected]
> >>>
> >>> 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.
Thanks,
Stefano
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/[email protected]/
>>>>> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/[email protected]/
>>>>> RFC v2: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/[email protected]
>>>>> RFC v1: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/[email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>> 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