On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:21:51AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > What should we do about things like this (bpf_prog_put() and callbacks
> > from kernel/bpf/syscall.c):
> >
> >
> > static void bpf_prog_uncharge_memlock(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > {
> > struct user_struct *user = prog->aux->user;
> >
> > atomic_long_sub(prog->pages, &user->locked_vm);
>
> Oh that's scary. Let's just make one reference count rely on another
> one and not check things...
Its not a reference count, its a resource limit thingy. Also, isn't
stacking, or in general building an object graph, the entire point of
reference counts?
> > free_uid(user);
> > }
> >
> > static void __bpf_prog_put_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> > {
> > struct bpf_prog_aux *aux = container_of(rcu, struct bpf_prog_aux,
> > rcu);
> >
> > free_used_maps(aux);
> > bpf_prog_uncharge_memlock(aux->prog);
> > bpf_prog_free(aux->prog);
> > }
> >
> > void bpf_prog_put(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > {
> > if (atomic_dec_and_test(&prog->aux->refcnt))
> > call_rcu(&prog->aux->rcu, __bpf_prog_put_rcu);
> > }
> >
> >
> > Not only do we want to protect prog->aux->refcnt, but I think we want
> > to protect user->locked_vm too ... I don't think it's sane for
> > user->locked_vm to be a stats_t ?
>
> I don't think this is sane code...
I once again fail to see any problems. That code is fine.
