[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez3zRoB7awMdb-koKYJyfP9WifTLevxLxLHioLhH=itZ-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:53:47 +0200
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
Cc: NitinGote <nitin.r.gote@...el.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: convert struct sidtab count to refcount_t
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:44 PM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:35 PM NitinGote <nitin.r.gote@...el.com> wrote:
> > refcount_t type and corresponding API should be
> > used instead of atomic_t when the variable is used as
> > a reference counter. This allows to avoid accidental
> > refcounter overflows that might lead to use-after-free
> > situations.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: NitinGote <nitin.r.gote@...el.com>
>
> Nack.
>
> The 'count' variable is not used as a reference counter here. It
> tracks the number of entries in sidtab, which is a very specific
> lookup table that can only grow (the count never decreases). I only
> made it atomic because the variable is read outside of the sidtab's
> spin lock and thus the reads and writes to it need to be guaranteed to
> be atomic. The counter is only updated under the spin lock, so
> insertions do not race with each other.
Probably shouldn't even be atomic_t... quoting Documentation/atomic_t.txt:
| SEMANTICS
| ---------
|
| Non-RMW ops:
|
| The non-RMW ops are (typically) regular LOADs and STOREs and are canonically
| implemented using READ_ONCE(), WRITE_ONCE(), smp_load_acquire() and
| smp_store_release() respectively. Therefore, if you find yourself only using
| the Non-RMW operations of atomic_t, you do not in fact need atomic_t at all
| and are doing it wrong.
So I think what you actually want here is a plain "int count", and then:
- for unlocked reads, either READ_ONCE()+smp_rmb() or smp_load_acquire()
- for writes, either smp_wmb()+WRITE_ONCE() or smp_store_release()
smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() are probably the nicest
here, since they are semantically clearer than smp_rmb()/smp_wmb().
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.
