[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202103151426.ED27141@keescook>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 15:02:58 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/8] Use atomic_t for ucounts reference counting
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 01:01:28PM +0100, Alexey Gladkov wrote:
> The current implementation of the ucounts reference counter requires the
> use of spin_lock. We're going to use get_ucounts() in more performance
> critical areas like a handling of RLIMIT_SIGPENDING.
This really looks like it should be refcount_t. I read the earlier
thread[1] on this, and it's not clear to me that this is a "normal"
condition. I think there was a bug in that version (This appeared
to *instantly* crash at boot with mnt_init() calling alloc_mnt_ns()
calling inc_ucount()). The current code looks like just a "regular"
reference counter of the allocated struct ucounts. Overflow should be
very unexpected, yes? And operating on a "0" ucounts should be a bug
too, right?
> [...]
> +/* 127: arbitrary random number, small enough to assemble well */
> +#define refcount_zero_or_close_to_overflow(ucounts) \
> + ((unsigned int) atomic_read(&ucounts->count) + 127u <= 127u)
Regardless, this should absolutely not have "refcount" as a prefix. I
realize it's only used here, but that's needlessly confusing with regard
to it being atomic_t not refcount_t.
> +struct ucounts *get_ucounts(struct ucounts *ucounts)
> +{
> + if (ucounts) {
> + if (refcount_zero_or_close_to_overflow(ucounts)) {
> + WARN_ONCE(1, "ucounts: counter has reached its maximum value");
> + return NULL;
> + }
> + atomic_inc(&ucounts->count);
> + }
> + return ucounts;
> +}
I feel like this should just be:
refcount_inc_not_zero(&ucounts->count);
Or, to address Linus's comment in the v3 series, change get_ucounts to
not return NULL first -- I can't see why that can ever happen in v8.
-Kees
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/116c7669744404364651e3b380db2d82bb23f983.1610722473.git.gladkov.alexey@gmail.com/
--
Kees Cook
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.
