Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE_COMPAT flag

[Pavel Begunkov]

On 22/09/2020 10:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:32 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 22/09/2020 03:58, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 5:24 PM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I may be looking at a different kernel than you, but aren't you
>>> preventing creating an io_uring regardless of whether SQPOLL is
>>> requested?
>>
>> I diffed a not-saved file on a sleepy head, thanks for noticing.
>> As you said, there should be an SQPOLL check.
>>
>> ...
>> if (ctx->compat && (p->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL))
>>         goto err;
> 
> Wouldn't that mean that now 32-bit containers behave differently
> between compat and native execution?
> 
> I think if you want to prevent 32-bit applications from using SQPOLL,
> it needs to be done the same way on both to be consistent:

The intention was to disable only compat not native 32-bit.

> 
>    if ((!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT) || ctx->compat) &&
>         (p->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL))
>             goto err;
> 
> I don't really see how taking away SQPOLL from 32-bit tasks is
> any better than just preventing access to the known-broken files
> as Al suggested, or adding the hack to make it work as in
> Christoph's original patch.

That's why I'm hoping that Christoph's work and the discussion will
reach consensus, but the bug should be patched in the end. IMHO,
it's a good and easy enough fallback option (temporal?).

> 
> Can we expect all existing and future user space to have a sane
> fallback when IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL fails?

SQPOLL has a few differences with non-SQPOLL modes, but it's easy
to convert between them. Anyway, SQPOLL is a privileged special
case that's here for performance/latency reasons, I don't think
there will be any non-accidental users of it.
-- 
Pavel Begunkov