On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 2:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:53:35PM -0800, Kees Cook 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);
>> 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 ?
>
> Why would you want to mess with locked_vm? You seem of the opinion that
> everything atomic_t is broken, this isn't the case.
What I mean to say is that while the refcnt here should clearly be
converted to kref or refcount_t, it looks like locked_vm should become
a new stats_t. However, it seems weird for locked_vm to ever wrap
either...
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Nexus Security
