[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <201906161429.BCE1083@keescook>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 14:31:24 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair <jnair@...vell.com>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Jan Glauber <jglauber@...vell.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Disable lockref on arm64
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 04:18:21PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Yes, I am using the same saturation point as x86. In this example, I
> am not entirely sure I understand why it matters, though: the atomics
> guarantee that the write by CPU2 fails if CPU1 changed the value in
> the mean time, regardless of which value it wrote.
>
> I think the concern is more related to the likelihood of another CPU
> doing something nasty between the moment that the refcount overflows
> and the moment that the handler pins it at INT_MIN/2, e.g.,
>
> > CPU 1 CPU 2
> > inc()
> > load INT_MAX
> > about to overflow?
> > yes
> >
> > set to 0
> > <insert exploit here>
> > set to INT_MIN/2
Ah, gotcha, but the "set to 0" is really "set to INT_MAX+1" (not zero)
if you're using the same saturation.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists