[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190116084452.773833d4@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:44:52 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
acme@...nel.org, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
jolsa@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
keescook@...omium.org, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes: convert uprobe.ref to refcount_t
[ Cc'ing Masami as he maintains uprobes (we need to add uprobes to
the MAINTAINERS file ]
-- Steve
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:20:27 +0200
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com> wrote:
> atomic_t variables are currently used to implement reference
> counters with the following properties:
> - counter is initialized to 1 using atomic_set()
> - a resource is freed upon counter reaching zero
> - once counter reaches zero, its further
> increments aren't allowed
> - counter schema uses basic atomic operations
> (set, inc, inc_not_zero, dec_and_test, etc.)
>
> Such atomic variables should be converted to a newly provided
> refcount_t type and API that prevents accidental counter overflows
> and underflows. This is important since overflows and underflows
> can lead to use-after-free situation and be exploitable.
>
> The variable uprobe.ref is used as pure reference counter.
> Convert it to refcount_t and fix up the operations.
>
> **Important note for maintainers:
>
> Some functions from refcount_t API defined in lib/refcount.c
> have different memory ordering guarantees than their atomic
> counterparts.
> The full comparison can be seen in
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/15/57 and it is hopefully soon
> in state to be merged to the documentation tree.
> Normally the differences should not matter since refcount_t provides
> enough guarantees to satisfy the refcounting use cases, but in
> some rare cases it might matter.
> Please double check that you don't have some undocumented
> memory guarantees for this variable usage.
>
> For the uprobe.ref it might make a difference
> in following places:
> - put_uprobe(): decrement in refcount_dec_and_test() only
> provides RELEASE ordering and control dependency on success
> vs. fully ordered atomic counterpart
>
> Suggested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Reviewed-by: David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
> Reviewed-by: Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
> ---
> kernel/events/uprobes.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index ad415f7..750aece 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ static struct percpu_rw_semaphore dup_mmap_sem;
>
> struct uprobe {
> struct rb_node rb_node; /* node in the rb tree */
> - atomic_t ref;
> + refcount_t ref;
> struct rw_semaphore register_rwsem;
> struct rw_semaphore consumer_rwsem;
> struct list_head pending_list;
> @@ -561,13 +561,13 @@ set_orig_insn(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long v
>
> static struct uprobe *get_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe)
> {
> - atomic_inc(&uprobe->ref);
> + refcount_inc(&uprobe->ref);
> return uprobe;
> }
>
> static void put_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe)
> {
> - if (atomic_dec_and_test(&uprobe->ref)) {
> + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&uprobe->ref)) {
> /*
> * If application munmap(exec_vma) before uprobe_unregister()
> * gets called, we don't get a chance to remove uprobe from
> @@ -658,7 +658,7 @@ static struct uprobe *__insert_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe)
> rb_link_node(&uprobe->rb_node, parent, p);
> rb_insert_color(&uprobe->rb_node, &uprobes_tree);
> /* get access + creation ref */
> - atomic_set(&uprobe->ref, 2);
> + refcount_set(&uprobe->ref, 2);
>
> return u;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists