[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:17:27 +0200
From: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: NitinGote <nitin.r.gote@...el.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: convert struct sidtab count to refcount_t
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 4:54 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:44 PM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:35 PM NitinGote <nitin.r.gote@...el.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@...el.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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
