linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] Introduce Simple atomic and non-atomic counters

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]

Date:   Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:17:09 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, corbet@....net,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, rafael@...nel.org,
        johannes@...solutions.net, lenb@...nel.org, james.morse@....com,
        tony.luck@...el.com, bp@...en8.de, arve@...roid.com,
        tkjos@...roid.com, maco@...roid.com, christian@...uner.io,
        hridya@...gle.com, surenb@...gle.com, minyard@....org,
        arnd@...db.de, mchehab@...nel.org, rric@...nel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Introduce Simple atomic and non-atomic counters

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 01:34:31PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 07:35:26PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 05:47:14PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > This patch series is a result of discussion at the refcount_t BOF
> > > the Linux Plumbers Conference. In this discussion, we identified
> > > a need for looking closely and investigating atomic_t usages in
> > > the kernel when it is used strictly as a counter without it
> > > controlling object lifetimes and state changes.
> > > 
> > > There are a number of atomic_t usages in the kernel where atomic_t api
> > > is used strictly for counting and not for managing object lifetime. In
> > > some cases, atomic_t might not even be needed.
> > >     
> > > The purpose of these counters is twofold: 1. clearly differentiate
> > > atomic_t counters from atomic_t usages that guard object lifetimes,
> > > hence prone to overflow and underflow errors. It allows tools that scan
> > > for underflow and overflow on atomic_t usages to detect overflow and
> > > underflows to scan just the cases that are prone to errors. 2. provides
> > > non-atomic counters for cases where atomic isn't necessary.
> > 
> > Nice series :)
> > 
> > It appears there is no user of counter_simple in this series other than the
> > selftest. Would you be planning to add any conversions in the series itself,
> > for illustration of use? Sorry if I missed a usage.
> > 
> > Also how do we guard against atomicity of counter_simple RMW operations? Is
> > the implication that it should be guarded using other synchronization to
> > prevent lost-update problem?
> > 
> > Some more comments:
> > 
> > 1.  atomic RMW operations that have a return value are fully ordered. Would
> >     you be adding support to counter_simple for such ordering as well, for
> >     consistency?
> 
> No -- there is no atomicity guarantee for counter_simple. I would prefer
> counter_simple not exist at all, specifically for this reason.

Yeah I am ok with it not existing, especially also as there are no examples
of its conversion/usage in the series.

> > 2. I felt counter_atomic and counter_atomic64 would be nice equivalents to
> >    the atomic and atomic64 naming currently used (i.e. dropping the '32').
> >    However that is just my opinion and I am ok with either naming.
> 
> I had asked that they be size-named to avoid any confusion (i.e. we're
> making a new API).

Works for me.

Cheers,

 - Joel