linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] percpu: use ZERO_SIZE_PTR / ZERO_OR_NULL

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1201301156530.28693@router.home>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:58:52 -0600 (CST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc:	Dmitry Antipov <dmitry.antipov@...aro.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org,
	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] percpu: use ZERO_SIZE_PTR / ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Tejun Heo wrote:

> Hello, Christoph.
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:52:23AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > We have two possibilities now:
> >
> > 1. We say that the value returned from the per cpu allocator is an opaque
> > value.
> >
> > 	This means that we have to remove the NULL check from the free
> > 	function. And audit the kernel code for all occurrences where
> > 	a per cpu pointer value of NULL is assumed to mean that no per
> > 	cpu allocation has occurred.
>
> No, NULL is never gonna be a valid return from any allocator including
> percpu.  Percpu allocator doesn't and will never do so.

How do you prevent the percpu allocator from returning NULL? I thought the
per cpu offsets can wrap around?

> > 2. We say that there are special values for the per cpu pointers (NULL,
> > 	ZERO_SIZE_PTR)
> >
> > 	Then we would have to guarantee that the per cpu allocator never
> > 	returns those values.
> >
> > 	Plus then the ZERO_SIZE_PTR patch will be fine.
> >
> > 	The danger exist of these values being passed as
> > 	parameters to functions that do not support them (per_cpu_ptr
> > 	etc). Those would need VM_BUG_ONs or some other checks to detect
> > 	potential problems.
>
> I'm saying we don't have this for ZERO_SIZE_PTR in any meaningful way
> at this point.  If somebody wants to implement it properly, please
> feel free to, but simply applying ZERO_SIZE_PTR without other changes
> doesn't make any sense.

We have no clean notion of how a percpu pointer needs to be handled. Both
ways of handling things have drawbacks.


--
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/