From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Gladkov <legion@kernel.org>,
io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/8] Use atomic_t for ucounts reference counting
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 15:02:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202103151426.ED27141@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <59ee3289194cd97d70085cce701bc494bfcb4fd2.1615372955.git.gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 01:01:28PM +0100, Alexey Gladkov wrote:
> The current implementation of the ucounts reference counter requires the
> use of spin_lock. We're going to use get_ucounts() in more performance
> critical areas like a handling of RLIMIT_SIGPENDING.
This really looks like it should be refcount_t. I read the earlier
thread[1] on this, and it's not clear to me that this is a "normal"
condition. I think there was a bug in that version (This appeared
to *instantly* crash at boot with mnt_init() calling alloc_mnt_ns()
calling inc_ucount()). The current code looks like just a "regular"
reference counter of the allocated struct ucounts. Overflow should be
very unexpected, yes? And operating on a "0" ucounts should be a bug
too, right?
> [...]
> +/* 127: arbitrary random number, small enough to assemble well */
> +#define refcount_zero_or_close_to_overflow(ucounts) \
> + ((unsigned int) atomic_read(&ucounts->count) + 127u <= 127u)
Regardless, this should absolutely not have "refcount" as a prefix. I
realize it's only used here, but that's needlessly confusing with regard
to it being atomic_t not refcount_t.
> +struct ucounts *get_ucounts(struct ucounts *ucounts)
> +{
> + if (ucounts) {
> + if (refcount_zero_or_close_to_overflow(ucounts)) {
> + WARN_ONCE(1, "ucounts: counter has reached its maximum value");
> + return NULL;
> + }
> + atomic_inc(&ucounts->count);
> + }
> + return ucounts;
> +}
I feel like this should just be:
refcount_inc_not_zero(&ucounts->count);
Or, to address Linus's comment in the v3 series, change get_ucounts to
not return NULL first -- I can't see why that can ever happen in v8.
-Kees
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/116c7669744404364651e3b380db2d82bb23f983.1610722473.git.gladkov.alexey@gmail.com/
--
Kees Cook
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-15 22:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-10 12:01 [PATCH v8 0/8] Count rlimits in each user namespace Alexey Gladkov
2021-03-10 12:01 ` [PATCH v8 1/8] Increase size of ucounts to atomic_long_t Alexey Gladkov
2021-03-10 12:01 ` [PATCH v8 2/8] Add a reference to ucounts for each cred Alexey Gladkov
2021-03-10 12:01 ` [PATCH v8 3/8] Use atomic_t for ucounts reference counting Alexey Gladkov
2021-03-10 21:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-03-15 22:02 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2021-03-15 22:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-03-16 18:49 ` Kees Cook
2021-03-16 19:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-03-16 19:32 ` Kees Cook
2021-03-10 12:01 ` [PATCH v8 4/8] Reimplement RLIMIT_NPROC on top of ucounts Alexey Gladkov
2021-03-10 12:01 ` [PATCH v8 5/8] Reimplement RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE " Alexey Gladkov
2021-03-10 12:01 ` [PATCH v8 6/8] Reimplement RLIMIT_SIGPENDING " Alexey Gladkov
2021-03-10 12:01 ` [PATCH v8 7/8] Reimplement RLIMIT_MEMLOCK " Alexey Gladkov
2021-03-10 12:01 ` [PATCH v8 8/8] kselftests: Add test to check for rlimit changes in different user namespaces Alexey Gladkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202103151426.ED27141@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=gladkov.alexey@gmail.com \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=legion@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).