Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220817214728.489904-1-axelrasmussen@google.com>
 <20220817214728.489904-3-axelrasmussen@google.com> <Yv3bnouKb7242Ama@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <Yv3bnouKb7242Ama@kroah.com>
From:   Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:12:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJHvVcjd3GtjJ2yr0gNDGHCqc8RZUYXCYaj8eEgo1TTLBjNYSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] userfaultfd: add /dev/userfaultfd for fine grained
 access control
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
        Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy <glebfm@altlinux.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        zhangyi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linuxkselftest <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 11:26 PM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 02:47:25PM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> > +static int userfaultfd_dev_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> > +{
> > +     return 0;
>
> If your open does nothing, no need to list it here at all, right?
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static long userfaultfd_dev_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long flags)
> > +{
> > +     if (cmd != USERFAULTFD_IOC_NEW)
> > +             return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +     return new_userfaultfd(flags);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct file_operations userfaultfd_dev_fops = {
> > +     .open = userfaultfd_dev_open,
> > +     .unlocked_ioctl = userfaultfd_dev_ioctl,
> > +     .compat_ioctl = userfaultfd_dev_ioctl,
>
> Why do you need to set compat_ioctl?  Shouldn't it just default to the
> existing one?

I took some more time looking at this today, and I think it actually
has to be the way it is.

I didn't find anywhere we noticed compat_ioctl unset, and default to
the "normal" one (e.g. see the compat ioctl syscall definition in
fs/ioctl.c). It looks to me like it really does need some value. It's
common to use compat_ptr_ioctl for this, but since we're interpreting
the arg as a scalar not as a pointer, doing that here would be
incorrect.

It looks like there are other existing examples that do it the same
way, e.g. seccomp_notify_ops in linux/seccomp.c.

>
> And why is this a device node at all?  Shouldn't the syscall handle all
> of this (to be honest, I didn't read anything but the misc code, sorry.)
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h