RE: [PATCH 15/19] kernel: convert audit_tree.count from atomic_t to refcount_t

From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"cgroups@vger.kernel.org" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-audit@redhat.com" <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>,
	"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"hannes@cmpxchg.org" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	"lizefan@huawei.com" <lizefan@huawei.com>,
	"acme@kernel.org" <acme@kernel.org>,
	"alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com" 
	<alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
	"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"luto@kernel.org" <luto@kernel.org>,
	Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@gmail.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 15/19] kernel: convert audit_tree.count from atomic_t to refcount_t
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 06:33:41 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41C8C33F@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhQUKFRcXAF=fdb5YByb=5L+rwEwwAExVLoc3zXFgAOTjQ@mail.gmail.com>

> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Reshetova, Elena
> > <elena.reshetova@intel.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Elena Reshetova
> >>> <elena.reshetova@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: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>
> >>> > Signed-off-by: Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@gmail.com>
> >>> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> >>> > Signed-off-by: David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>
> >>> > ---
> >>> >  kernel/audit_tree.c | 8 ++++----
> >>> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> No objection on my end, same for patch 16/19.
> >>>
> >>> I have no problem merging both these patches into the audit/next
> >>> branch after the merge window, is that your goal or are you merging
> >>> these via a different tree?
> >>
> >> Thank you Paul! I think it is better if they go through the trees they supposed to
> go through
> >> since this way they would get more testing and etc. So, please take the relevant
> ones to your tree when the time is right.
> >>
> >> After the first round, I guess we will see what patches are not propagating and
> then maybe take them via Kees tree.
> >
> > I just realized that include/linux/refcount.h didn't make it into
> > v4.10 which means there is going to be delay until I merge them into
> > the audit tree (I don't base the tree on -rc releases except under
> > extreme circumstances).  I've got the patches queued up in a private
> > holding branch (I added #includes BTW) so I won't forget, but as a
> > FYI, they likely won't make it in until v4.12.
> 
> Quick update on this: I needed to rebase the audit/next branch for
> other reasons so I've gone ahead and merged 15/19 and 16/19 into
> audit/next; they should go to Linus during the next merge window.
> Thanks for your patience.

Thank you very much Paul!
I just got back from holidays, so catching up with the mail slowly.

Best Regards,
Elena.
> 
> --
> paul moore
> www.paul-moore.com