[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121129202231.GJ15094@google.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:22:31 -0800
From: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, zab@...hat.com,
jmoyer@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/25] Generic dynamic per cpu refcounting
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:34:52PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:29:25AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > There's some kind of symmetry going on here, and if I'd been awake more
> > in college I could probably say exactly why it works, but it does.
>
> I think the catch is that using only a 32 bit counter is something the
> user could arbitrarily control the sum of all parts. I think a 64 bit
> counter may be required to ensure no overflow occurs. Otherwise, an
> overflow could result in a premature free when there are still 2^32
> objects active thanks to a malicious user (possible on systems with lots
> of memory these days -- remote, but possible).
That's no different from regular atomic_t - but you're right, we
should be using size_t for anything userspace can manipulate.
Not gonna worry about it in this patch though because the refcount was
an atomic_t before and userspace can only do one get per thread.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists