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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 26 Oct 2021 02:34:22 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Jordy Zomer <jordy@...ing.systems>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] secretmem: Prevent secretmem_users from wrapping to zero

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 04:37:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> For example, traditionally, on x86, with atomic counting there are
> three special situations: negative, 0 and positive. So if you use the
> traditional x86 counting atomics (just add/sub/inc/dec, no xadd) then
> there are situations where you can get more information about the
> result in %eflags if you don't use zero as the initial value, but -1.
> 
> Because then you can do "inc", and if ZF is set, you know you were the
> _first_ person to increment it. And when you use "dec", and SF is set
> afterwards, you know you are the _last_ person to decrement it.
> 
> That was useful when things like "xadd" weren't available, and cmpxchg
> loops are expensive. So we used to have counters where -1 was that
> "zero point". Very similar to your "1 is the zero point".
> 
> But was it _logical_? No. It was an implementation trick. I think
> we've removed all those cases because it was so subtle and confusing
> (but maybe we still have it somewhere - I did not check).

We still do it for page->_mapcount; it's biased to -1 so that both
"the page has exactly one mapping" and "the page has no mapping" are
cheaply checkable conditions.

But, as you say, that's invisible to the users.  page_mapcount() is
return atomic_read(&page->_mapcount) + 1;

Powered by blists - more mailing lists