[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41C190FC@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:35:15 +0000
From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, "will.deacon@....com"
<will.deacon@....com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Hans Liljestrand
<ishkamiel@...il.com>, David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>, "aik@...abs.ru"
<aik@...abs.ru>, "david@...son.dropbear.id.au" <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: RE: Conversion from atomic_t to refcount_t: summary of issues
So, could we agree on the following additions that are needed to refcount_t API:
- refcount_long_t and all related functions
- refcount_add(), refcount_sub(), refcount_sub_and_test()
- refcount_dec_return(), refcount_inc_return()
- refcount_dec_if_one()
With the above set we can hopefully convert almost everything we already saw and then we can decide what to do with remaining extreme cases.
Peter, if you would be able to send the new patch providing the above API, it would be great!
I am on vacation from tomorrow to December 7, but Hans will be finishing processing rest of the cases and he can also do remaining conversions given that we agree on additional API.
We can also provide the above API, but it is easier to maintain it in one place, so Peter if you keep updating your version, it is better that you send it out.
Best Regards,
Elena.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@...radead.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:14 PM
> To: Reshetova, Elena <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
> Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com; Greg KH
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>; Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>;
> will.deacon@....com; Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>; Hans Liljestrand
> <ishkamiel@...il.com>; David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>; aik@...abs.ru;
> david@...son.dropbear.id.au
> Subject: Re: Conversion from atomic_t to refcount_t: summary of issues
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:56:17AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > First, about the types.
> > We do have a number of instances of atomic_long_t used as refcounters, see
> below:
>
> Right, those were expected. We could do long_refcount_t I suppose.
>
> > And yes, we *do* have at least one instance (again not 100% finished,
> > more might show up) of atomic64_t used as refcounter:
> >
> > arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_iommu.c:
> > struct mm_iommu_table_group_mem_t {
> > ...
> > atomic64_t mapped;
> > ...
> > }
>
> *urgh*, Alexey does that really need to be atomic64_t ? Wouldn't
> atomic_long_t work for you?
>
> > Next with regards to API. Networking code surely wins the competitions
> > of giving the most trouble. The biggest overall issue seem to be in
> > fact that freeing the object happens not when refcount is zero, but
> > when it is -1, which is obviously impossible to implement with current
> > API that only returns unsigned int.
> >
> > Most common constructions that are hard to fit into current API are:
> >
> > - if (atomic_cmpxchg(&cur->refcnt, 1, 0) == 1) {...} (typical for networking
> code)
>
> Right, we spoke about this before, and the dec_if_one() you mentioned
> below could replace that.
>
> > - if (atomic_cmpxchg(&p->refcnt, 0, -1) == 0) {..} (typical for networking code)
>
> That's really weird, a refcount of -1 doesn't really make sense.
>
> > - if (atomic_add_unless(&inode->i_count, -1, 1)) (typical for fs and other code)
>
> And that's dec_not_one(), really weird that, why do they need that?
>
> > Also, refcount_add() seems to be needed in number of places since it
> > looks like refcounts in some cases are increased by two or by some
> > constant. Luckily we haven't seen a need a sub().
>
> There is sub_and_test() usage in for example memcontrol.c.
>
> > The following functions are also needed quite commonly:
>
> > refcount_inc_return()
> > refcount_dec_return()
>
> What for? They don't typicaly make sense for refcounting? Other than the
> trivial pattern of dec_return() == 0, which is already well covered.
>
> > I also saw one use of this from net/ipv4/udp.c:
> > if (!sk || !atomic_inc_not_zero_hint(&sk->sk_refcnt, 2))
>
> Yes, that one is quite unfortunate, we can trivially support that
> ofcourse, but it does make a bit of a mess of things.
>
> > Lastly as I mentioned previously, almost half of invocations of dec()
> > in the code is plain atomic_dec() without any if statements and any
> > checks on what happens as a result of dec(). Peter previously
> > suggested to turn them into WARN_ON(refcount_dec_and_test()), but
> > looking in the code, it is not really clear what would this help to
> > achieve?
>
> Well, it clearly marks where refcounting goes bad and we leak crap. A
> regular decrement should _never_ hit 0.
>
> > It is clear that in that places the caller explicitly
> > doesn't care about how the dec() goes and what is the end result....
>
> No, the typical usage would be you _know_ it will not hit 0. Any other
> usage is broken and bad.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
