..............................
......./\............/\.......
....../  \__________/  \......
...../      (o)(o)      \.....
....(        =ww=        )....
.....\       /--\       /.....
......\________________/......
..............................

Возникла абсурдная ситуация: чтобы найти запрещенный материал и передать его в правоохранительные органы, нужно было формально этот материал найти и идентифицировать, что автоматически подпадало под признаки состава административного правонарушения. Сейчас эту коллизию исправляют.

The zero-copy support is one of the riskiest aspects of AF_ALG. It allows userspace to request cryptographic operations directly on pagecache pages of files like the 'su' binary. It also allows userspace to concurrently modify the memory which is being operated on, a recipe for TOCTOU vulnerabilities.

While zero-copy support is more valuable in other areas of the kernel like the frequently used networking and file I/O code, it has far less value in AF_ALG, which is a niche UAPI. AF_ALG primarily just exists for backwards compatibility with a small set of userspace programs such as 'iwd' that haven't yet been fixed to use userspace crypto code.

Originally AF_ALG was intended to be used to access hardware crypto accelerators. However, it isn't an efficient interface for that anyway, and it turned out to be rarely used in this way in practice.

Thus, the risks of the zero-copy support in AF_ALG vastly outweigh its benefits. Let's just remove it.

This commit removes it from the "skcipher" and "aead" algorithm types. "hash" will be handled separately.

This is a soft break, not a hard break. Even after this commit, it still works to use splice() or sendfile() to transfer data to an AF_ALG request socket from a pipe or any file, respectively. What changes is
just that the kernel now makes an internal, stable copy of the data before doing the crypto operation. So performance is slightly reduced, but the UAPI isn't broken. And, very importantly, it's much safer.

Tested with libkcapi/test.sh. All its test cases still pass. I also verified that this would have prevented the copy.fail exploit as well. I also used a custom test program to verify that sendfile() still works.