linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] kref: Implement kref_put

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: <20161115075007.GM3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:50:07 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     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>,
        David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] kref: Implement kref_put_lock()

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:35:48PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > Because home-rolling your own is _awesome_, stop doing it. Provide
> > kref_put_lock(), just like kref_put_mutex() but for a spinlock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/kref.h |   21 +++++++++++++++------
> >  net/sunrpc/svcauth.c |   15 ++++++++++-----
> >  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- a/include/linux/kref.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kref.h
> > @@ -86,12 +86,21 @@ static inline int kref_put_mutex(struct
> >                                  struct mutex *lock)
> >  {
> >         WARN_ON(release == NULL);
> 
> This WARN_ON makes sense, yes, though it seems like it should be deal
> with differently. If it's NULL, we'll just Oops when we call release()
> later... Seems like this should saturate the kref or something else
> similar.

So I simply took the pattern from the existing kref_put().

But I like it more in these kref_put_{lock,mutex}() variants, because
someone will need to unlock. If we simply crash/bug without unlock we'll
have broken state the rest of the kernel cannot fix up.