[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEXv5_hyDYMCKX-ZuK1nw=SSTpgKb-DCT3EoTC_L41sQ+RJojQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 06:05:26 -0500
From: David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
To: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Reference counting struct inet_peer
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017, David Windsor wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm working on a patchset that adds overflow protection to kernel
>> reference counters, as part of the KSPP effort. We're introducing a
>> new type, tentatively called refcount_t, that will ultimately replace
>> atomic_t as the type used for kernel reference counters. refcount_t
>> has a constrained interface relative to atomic_t and stores reference
>> counts as unsigned integers.
>>
>> While performing an audit of kernel reference counters, we've come
>> upon a few corner cases that we're unable to cleanly migrate to
>> refcount_t. One of these is the reference counting scheme for struct
>> inet_peer.
>
> ...
>
>> We're also seeing the same thing (freeing shared objects when their
>> refcount becomes -1) in ip_vs.h:
>>
>> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/net/ip_vs.h#L1424
>>
>> static inline void ip_vs_dest_put_and_free(struct ip_vs_dest *dest)
>> {
>> if (atomic_dec_return(&dest->refcnt) < 0)
>> kfree(dest);
>> }
>
> I think, this is easy to fix. The problem is that
> dest_trash currently holds deleted dests (unlinked from RCU lists)
> with refcnt=0. If we change the dest_trash to hold dest
> with refcnt=1, the above atomic_dec_return can be changed to
> atomic_dec_and_test. Change should be small: ip_vs_dest_put
> should be removed from __ip_vs_del_dest(), ip_vs_dest_hold()
> from ip_vs_trash_get_dest() and refcnt check in
> ip_vs_dest_trash_expire() should be updated. Let me know if
> this holds your work, I can provide such patch to fix it.
>
Thanks for looking into this. Your solution does indeed solve the
problem we're looking to fix. Essentially, we just need the reference
count to never become < 0. If you have a patch to fix this, that
would be great.
Thanks,
David Windsor
> Regards
>
> --
> Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists