linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: switch to atomic

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, 6 Dec 2021 16:13:00 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: switch to atomic_t for request references

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 3:28 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not arguing for refcount_t -- I'm arguing for an API that isn't a
> regression of features that have been protecting the kernel from bugs.

Maybe somebody could actually just fix refcount_t instead. Somebody
who cares about that currently horrendously bad interface.

Fix it to not do the fundamentally broken saturation that actively
destroys state: fix it to have a safe "try to increment", instead of
an unsafe "increment and do bad things".

Fix it to not unnecessarily use expensive compare-and-exchange loops,
when you can safely just race a bit, safe in the knowledge that you're
not going to race 2**31 times.

IOW, I think that "try_get_page()" function is basically the *much*
superior version of what is currently a broken "refcount_inc()".

And yes, it does warn about that overflow case that you claim only
refcount_t does. And does so without the broken semantics that
refcount h as.

                Linus