Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:20:52 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Lee Duncan <lduncan@suse.com>, Chris Leech <cleech@redhat.com>,
        Adam Nichols <adam@grimm-co.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] seq_file: Unconditionally use vmalloc for buffer
Message-ID: <YFIeVLDsfBMa7fHW@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20210315174851.622228-1-keescook@chromium.org>
 <YFBs202BqG9uqify@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <202103161205.B2181BDE38@keescook>
 <YFHxNT1Pwoslmhxq@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <YFIFY7mj65sStba1@kroah.com>
 <YFIVwPWTo48ITkHs@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <YFIYrMVTC42boZ/Z@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YFIYrMVTC42boZ/Z@kroah.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 17-03-21 15:56:44, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 03:44:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 17-03-21 14:34:27, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 01:08:21PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Btw. I still have problems with the approach. seq_file is intended to
> > > > provide safe way to dump values to the userspace. Sacrificing
> > > > performance just because of some abuser seems like a wrong way to go as
> > > > Al pointed out earlier. Can we simply stop the abuse and disallow to
> > > > manipulate the buffer directly? I do realize this might be more tricky
> > > > for reasons mentioned in other emails but this is definitely worth
> > > > doing.
> > > 
> > > We have to provide a buffer to "write into" somehow, so what is the best
> > > way to stop "abuse" like this?
> > 
> > What is wrong about using seq_* interface directly?
> 
> Right now every show() callback of sysfs would have to be changed :(

Is this really the case? Would it be too ugly to have an intermediate
buffer and then seq_puts it into the seq file inside sysfs_kf_seq_show.
Sure one copy more than necessary but it this shouldn't be a hot path or
even visible on small strings. So that might be worth destroying an
inherently dangerous seq API (seq_get_buf).
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs