[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202010071111.F3968C04@keescook>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 11:12:01 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: shuah@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] selftests:lib:test_counters: add new test for
counters
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 02:44:33PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> Add a new selftest for testing counter_atomic* Counters API. This test
> load test_counters test modules and unloads.
>
> The test module runs tests and prints results in dmesg.
>
> 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 to 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.
>
> Simple atomic counters api provides interfaces for simple atomic counters
> that just count, and don't guard resource lifetimes. Counter will wrap
> around to 0 when it overflows and should not be used to guard resource
> lifetimes, device usage and open counts that control state changes, and
> pm states.
>
> Using counter_atomic* to guard lifetimes could lead to use-after free
> when it overflows and undefined behavior when used to manage state
> changes and device usage/open states.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists