|
Message-ID: <87a85wvsxa.fsf@xmission.com> Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 05:49:53 -0500 From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, arozansk@...hat.com, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>, "axboe\@kernel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>, "x86\@kernel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, "kernel-hardening\@lists.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ipc subsystem refcounter conversions Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:11:13AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> Kees I I have a concern: >> >> __must_check bool refcount_add_not_zero(unsigned int i, refcount_t *r) >> { >> unsigned int new, val = atomic_read(&r->refs); >> >> do { >> if (!val) >> return false; >> >> if (unlikely(val == UINT_MAX)) >> return true; >> >> new = val + i; >> if (new < val) >> new = UINT_MAX; >> >> } while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(&r->refs, &val, new)); >> >> WARN_ONCE(new == UINT_MAX, "refcount_t: saturated; leaking memory.\n"); >> >> return true; >> } >> >> Why in the world do you succeed when you the value saturates???? > > Why not? On saturation the object will leak and returning a reference to > it is always good. > >> From a code perspective that is bizarre. The code already has to handle >> the case when the counter does not increment. > > I don't see it as bizarre, we turned an overflow/use-after-free into a > leak. That's the primary mechanism here. > > As long as we have a reference to a leaked object, we might as well use > it, its not going anywhere. > >> Fixing the return value would move refcount_t into the realm of >> something that is desirable because it has bettern semantics and >> is more useful just on a day to day correctness point of view. Even >> ignoring the security implications. > > It changes the semantics between inc_not_zero() and inc(). It also > complicates the semantics of inc_not_zero(), where currently the failure > implies the count is 0 and means no-such-object, you complicate matters > by basically returning 'busy'. Busy is not a state of a reference count. It is true I am suggesting treating something with a saturated reference as not available. If that is what you mean by busy. But if it's reference is zero it is also not available. So there is no practical difference. > That is a completely new class of failure that is actually hard to deal > with, not to mention that it completely destroys refcount_inc_not_zero() > being a 'simple' replacement for atomic_inc_not_zero(). > > In case of the current failure, the no-such-object, we can fix that by > creating said object. But what to do on 'busy' ? Surely you don't want > to create another. You'd have to somehow retrofit something to wait on > in every user. Using little words. A return of true from inc_not_zero means we took a reference. A return of false means we did not take a reference. The code already handles I took a reference or I did not take a reference. Therefore lying with refcount_t is not helpful. It takes failures the code could easily handle and turns them into leaks. At least that is how I have seen reference counts used. And those are definitely the plane obivous semantics. Your changes are definitely not drop in replacements for atomic_t in my code. Eric
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.