Re: [PATCH] selinux: convert struct sidtab count to refcount_t

From: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: NitinGote <nitin.r.gote@intel.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	 Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	 Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
	 SElinux list <selinux@vger.kernel.org>,
	 Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: convert struct sidtab count to refcount_t
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:17:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFqZXNuhRratpxMke=T4ZXW8e4WLit932iLWb6dR3w9-BYU9Kg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez3zRoB7awMdb-koKYJyfP9WifTLevxLxLHioLhH=itZ-A@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 4:54 PM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:44 PM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:35 PM NitinGote <nitin.r.gote@intel.com> wrote:
> > > refcount_t type and corresponding API should be
> > > used instead of atomic_t when the variable is used as
> > > a reference counter. This allows to avoid accidental
> > > refcounter overflows that might lead to use-after-free
> > > situations.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: NitinGote <nitin.r.gote@intel.com>
> >
> > Nack.
> >
> > The 'count' variable is not used as a reference counter here. It
> > tracks the number of entries in sidtab, which is a very specific
> > lookup table that can only grow (the count never decreases). I only
> > made it atomic because the variable is read outside of the sidtab's
> > spin lock and thus the reads and writes to it need to be guaranteed to
> > be atomic. The counter is only updated under the spin lock, so
> > insertions do not race with each other.
>
> Probably shouldn't even be atomic_t... quoting Documentation/atomic_t.txt:
>
> | SEMANTICS
> | ---------
> |
> | Non-RMW ops:
> |
> | The non-RMW ops are (typically) regular LOADs and STOREs and are canonically
> | implemented using READ_ONCE(), WRITE_ONCE(), smp_load_acquire() and
> | smp_store_release() respectively. Therefore, if you find yourself only using
> | the Non-RMW operations of atomic_t, you do not in fact need atomic_t at all
> | and are doing it wrong.
>
> So I think what you actually want here is a plain "int count", and then:
>  - for unlocked reads, either READ_ONCE()+smp_rmb() or smp_load_acquire()
>  - for writes, either smp_wmb()+WRITE_ONCE() or smp_store_release()
>
> smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() are probably the nicest
> here, since they are semantically clearer than smp_rmb()/smp_wmb().

Oh yes, I had a hunch that there would be a better way to do it... I
should have taken the time to read the documentation carefully :)

I am on PTO today, but I will be happy to send a patch to convert the
atomic_t usage to the smp_load_acquire()/smp_store_release() helpers
tomorrow. It will also allow us to just use u32 directly and to get
rid of the ugly casts and the INT_MAX limit.

Thanks a lot for the hint, Jann!

--
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com>
Software Engineer, Security Technologies
Red Hat, Inc.