linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] kref: Add kref

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:30:29 -0500
From:   David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] kref: Add kref_read()

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:58:38AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 2:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:53:35PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What should we do about things like this (bpf_prog_put() and callbacks
>> >> from kernel/bpf/syscall.c):
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> static void bpf_prog_uncharge_memlock(struct bpf_prog *prog)
>> >> {
>> >>         struct user_struct *user = prog->aux->user;
>> >>
>> >>         atomic_long_sub(prog->pages, &user->locked_vm);
>> >>         free_uid(user);
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> static void __bpf_prog_put_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
>> >> {
>> >>         struct bpf_prog_aux *aux = container_of(rcu, struct bpf_prog_aux, rcu);
>> >>
>> >>         free_used_maps(aux);
>> >>         bpf_prog_uncharge_memlock(aux->prog);
>> >>         bpf_prog_free(aux->prog);
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> void bpf_prog_put(struct bpf_prog *prog)
>> >> {
>> >>         if (atomic_dec_and_test(&prog->aux->refcnt))
>> >>                 call_rcu(&prog->aux->rcu, __bpf_prog_put_rcu);
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not only do we want to protect prog->aux->refcnt, but I think we want
>> >> to protect user->locked_vm too ... I don't think it's sane for
>> >> user->locked_vm to be a stats_t ?
>> >
>> > Why would you want to mess with locked_vm? You seem of the opinion that
>> > everything atomic_t is broken, this isn't the case.
>>
>> What I mean to say is that while the refcnt here should clearly be
>> converted to kref or refcount_t, it looks like locked_vm should become
>> a new stats_t. However, it seems weird for locked_vm to ever wrap
>> either...
>
> No, its not a statistic. Also, I'm far from convinced stats_t is an
> actually useful thing to have.
>

Regarding this, has there been any thought given as to how stats_t
will meaningfully differ from atomic_t?  If refcount_t is semantically
"atomic_t with reference counter overflow protection," what
services/guarantees does stats_t provide?  I cannot think of any that
don't require implementing overflow detection of some sort, which
incurs a performance hit.

One conceivable service/guarantee would be to give stats_t the ability
to detect/report when an overflow has occurred, but not ultimately
with the offending process getting killed.   On x86, this could be
done by having stats_t overflows generate a different exception number
and corresponding handler than refcount_t-generated overflows.  It
would still contain the mechanisms for detecting and responding to
overflows, but the response to stats_t overflows would differ from
that of refcount_t overflows.  Semantically, this version of stats_t
would be "refcount_t minus 'kill the offending process'."  I'm not
sure if this abstraction is in fact useful, or indeed worth the
requisite performance hit; I'm just suggesting a possible semantic
difference between atomic_t and stats_t.

> refcount_t brought special semantics that clearly are different from
> regular atomic_t, stats_t would not, so why would it need to exist.
>
> Not to mention that you seem over eager to apply it, which doesn't
> inspire confidence.