[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjoXgm=j=vt9S2dcMk3Ws6Z8ukibrEncFZcxh5n77F6Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 16:41:19 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, axboe@...nel.dk, brauner@...nel.org,
christian.koenig@....com, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz, laura@...bott.name,
linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
minhquangbui99@...il.com, sumit.semwal@...aro.org,
syzbot+045b454ab35fd82a35fb@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] epoll: try to be a _bit_ better about file lifetimes
On Fri, 3 May 2024 at 16:23, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> static bool __must_check get_dma_buf_unless_doomed(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
> {
> return atomic_long_inc_not_zero(&dmabuf->file->f_count) != 0L;
> }
>
> If we end up adding epi_fget(), we'll have 2 cases of using
> "atomic_long_inc_not_zero" for f_count. Do we need some kind of blessed
> helper to live in file.h or something, with appropriate comments?
I wonder if we could try to abstract this out a bit more.
These games with non-ref-counted file structures *feel* a bit like the
games we play with non-ref-counted (aka "stashed") 'struct dentry'
that got fairly recently cleaned up with path_from_stashed() when both
nsfs and pidfs started doing the same thing.
I'm not loving the TTM use of this thing, but at least the locking and
logic feels a lot more straightforward (ie the
atomic_long_inc_not_zero() here is clealy under the 'prime->mutex'
lock
IOW, the tty use looks correct to me, and it has fairly simple locking
and is just catching the the race between 'fput()' decrementing the
refcount and and 'file->f_op->release()' doing the actual release.
You are right that it's similar to the epoll thing in that sense, it
just looks a _lot_ more straightforward to me (and, unlike epoll,
doesn't look actively buggy right now).
Could we abstract out this kind of "stashed file pointer" so that we'd
have a *common* form for this? Not just the inc_not_zero part, but the
locking rule too?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists