[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161117085342.GB3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:53:42 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
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>,
David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] kref: Add kref_read()
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:08:52PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> I prefer to avoid 'fixing' things that are not broken.
> Note, prog->aux->refcnt already has explicit checks for overflow.
> locked_vm is used for resource accounting and not refcnt,
> so I don't see issues there either.
The idea is to use something along the lines of:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161115104608.GH3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
for all refcounts in the kernel.
Also note that your:
struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_add(struct bpf_prog *prog, int i)
{
if (atomic_add_return(i, &prog->aux->refcnt) > BPF_MAX_REFCNT) {
atomic_sub(i, &prog->aux->refcnt);
return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
}
return prog;
}
is actually broken in the face of an actual overflow. Suppose @i is big
enough to wrap refcnt into negative space.
Also, the current sentiment is to strongly discourage add/sub operations
for refcounts.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists