On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
> 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...
I prefer to avoid 'fixing' things that are not broken.
Note, prog->aux->refcnt already has explicit checks for overflow.
locked_vm is used for resource accounting and not refcnt,
so I don't see issues there either.
