linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cgroup: pids: use {READ,WRITE}

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: <20191016152946.34j5x45ko5auhv3g@yavin.dot.cyphar.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Oct 2019 02:29:46 +1100
From:   Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: pids: use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE for pids->limit
 operations

On 2019-10-16, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello, Aleksa.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:32:19PM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > Maybe I'm misunderstanding Documentation/atomic_t.txt, but it looks to
> > me like it's explicitly saying that I shouldn't use atomic64_t if I'm
> > just using it for fetching and assignment.
> 
> Hah, where is it saying that?

Isn't that what this says:

> Therefore, if you find yourself only using the Non-RMW operations of
> atomic_t, you do not in fact need atomic_t at all and are doing it
> wrong.

Doesn't using just atomic64_read() and atomic64_set() fall under "only
using the non-RMW operations of atomic_t"? But yes, I agree that any
locking is overkill.

> > As for 64-bit on 32-bit machines -- that is a separate issue, but from
> > [1] it seems to me like there are more problems that *_ONCE() fixes than
> > just split reads and writes.
> 
> Your explanations are too wishy washy.  If you wanna fix it, please do
> it correctly.  R/W ONCE isn't the right solution here.

Sure, I will switch it to use atomic64_read() and atomic64_set() instead
if that's what you'd prefer. Though I will mention that on quite a few
architectures atomic64_read() is defined as:

  #define atomic64_read(v)        READ_ONCE((v)->counter)

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)