linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/12] cgroups: Pull up res counter charge failure interpretation to caller

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:	Fri, 9 Sep 2011 08:17:11 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] cgroups: Pull up res counter charge failure
 interpretation to caller

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:33:20 +0200 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 03:26:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue,  6 Sep 2011 02:13:02 +0200
> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > res_counter_charge() always returns -ENOMEM when the limit is reached
> > > and the charge thus can't happen.
> > > 
> > > However it's up to the caller to interpret this failure and return
> > > the appropriate error value. The task counter subsystem will need
> > > to report the user that a fork() has been cancelled because of some
> > > limit reached, not because we are too short on memory.
> > > 
> > > Fix this by returning -1 when res_counter_charge() fails.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> > > Cc: Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>
> > > Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
> > > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> > > Cc: Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>
> > > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > > Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
> > > Cc: Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org>
> > > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/res_counter.c |    2 +-
> > >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/res_counter.c b/kernel/res_counter.c
> > > index 4aaa790..45fa6fb 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/res_counter.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/res_counter.c
> > > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ int res_counter_charge_locked(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val)
> > >  {
> > >  	if (counter->usage + val > counter->limit) {
> > >  		counter->failcnt++;
> > > -		return -ENOMEM;
> > > +		return -1;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > >  	counter->usage += val;
> > 
> > This also affects the return value of your new and undocumented
> > res_counter_charge_until().
> > 
> > That's a bit of a hand-grenade which could lead to system calls
> > returning -1 (ie: EPERM) to userspace.
> 
> Right. What about making it a boolean?

mmm, not sure.  0/-1 is a reasonable return value for a function which
either did or didn't succeed.  Adding appropriate interface
documentation is a way of reducing the opportunity for making this mistake.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/