Re: [PSEUDOPATCH] rename is_compat_task

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Mon Dec 07 2015 - 23:36:59 EST



* Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Monday 07 December 2015 15:12:59 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Hi all-
> >
> > Every time I look at is_compat_task, I cringe. That function
> > determines whether we're in a compat syscall, not whether we're in a
> > compat task. There are probably architectures (arm64?) under which
> > these are the same conditions, but they are definitely *not* the same
> > thing on x86.
> >
> > Can we just fix it? I propose the following patch:
> >
> > $ find -type f |xargs sed -i -e 's/is_compat_task/in_compat_syscall/g'
> >
> > If there's general agreement, can we do that at the end of the next
> > merge window?
> >
> > I could also send a patch series to add in_compat_syscall, change all
> > the users, then delete the old stuff, but that seems overcomplicated
> > for something that's literally just renaming a token.
>
> As far as I know, x86 is the special case here, on all other architectures, this
> actually checks the task, and it's impossible to call a system call of the other
> kind.

Well, even on architectures that don't allow mixed mode system calls for the same
task the name 'in_compat_syscall()' is still correct: it just happens to also be a
permanent condition for the life time of a task.

On architectures that allow mixed mode syscalls the assumption and confusion
carried by the 'is_compat_task()' misnomer has resulted in real security bugs,
hence Andy's suggestion for a rename.

So without my x86 hat on I'd still argue that 'is_compat_syscall()' is the more
expressive (and hence more robust, safer) name. On architectures that don't care
the change carries zero costs.

So are there any deep objections to doing this rename in a single, quick,
pain-minimized fashion right at the end of the next merge window, when the amount
of pending patches in various maintainer trees is at a cyclical minimum? We can
also keep an is_compat_task() migratory define for one more cycle just in case.

Thanks,

Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/