Re: [PATCH 03/11] fs: don't allow splice read/write without explicit ops

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:58:07PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 09:54:46PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:39:34PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 09:32:04AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > default_file_splice_write is the last piece of generic code that uses
> > > > set_fs to make the uaccess routines operate on kernel pointers.  It
> > > > implements a "fallback loop" for splicing from files that do not actually
> > > > provide a proper splice_read method.  The usual file systems and other
> > > > high bandwith instances all provide a ->splice_read, so this just removes
> > > > support for various device drivers and procfs/debugfs files.  If splice
> > > > support for any of those turns out to be important it can be added back
> > > > by switching them to the iter ops and using generic_file_splice_read.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > This seems a bit disruptive? I feel like this is going to make fuzzers
> > > really noisy (e.g. trinity likes to splice random stuff out of /sys and
> > > /proc).
> > 
> > Noisy in the sence of triggering the pr_debug or because they can't
> > handle -EINVAL?
> 
> Well, maybe both? I doubt much _expects_ to be using splice, so I'm fine
> with that, but it seems weird not to have a fall-back, especially if
> something would like to splice a file out of there. But, I'm not opposed
> to the change, it just seems like it might cause pain down the road.

The problem is that without pretending a buffer is in user space when
it actually isn't, we can't have a generic fallback.  So we'll have to
have specific support - I wrote generic support for seq_file, and
willy did for /proc/sys, but at least the first caused a few problems
and a fair amount of churn, so I'd rather see first if we can get
away without it.

> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook
---end quoted text---