| Message ID | 20200827134044.82821-1-sgarzare@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | io_uring: add restrictions to support untrusted applications and guests | expand |
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/20200813153254.93731-1-sgarzare@redhat.com/ > v3: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200728160101.48554-1-sgarzare@redhat.com/ > RFC v2: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200716124833.93667-1-sgarzare@redhat.com > RFC v1: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200710141945.129329-1-sgarzare@redhat.com > > 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.
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/20200813153254.93731-1-sgarzare@redhat.com/ > > v3: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200728160101.48554-1-sgarzare@redhat.com/ > > RFC v2: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200716124833.93667-1-sgarzare@redhat.com > > RFC v1: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200710141945.129329-1-sgarzare@redhat.com > > > > 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, Stefano
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/20200813153254.93731-1-sgarzare@redhat.com/ >>> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200728160101.48554-1-sgarzare@redhat.com/ >>> RFC v2: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200716124833.93667-1-sgarzare@redhat.com >>> RFC v1: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200710141945.129329-1-sgarzare@redhat.com >>> >>> 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.
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/20200813153254.93731-1-sgarzare@redhat.com/ > >>> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200728160101.48554-1-sgarzare@redhat.com/ > >>> RFC v2: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200716124833.93667-1-sgarzare@redhat.com > >>> RFC v1: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200710141945.129329-1-sgarzare@redhat.com > >>> > >>> 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/20200813153254.93731-1-sgarzare@redhat.com/ >>>>> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200728160101.48554-1-sgarzare@redhat.com/ >>>>> RFC v2: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200716124833.93667-1-sgarzare@redhat.com >>>>> RFC v1: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20200710141945.129329-1-sgarzare@redhat.com >>>>> >>>>> 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.