[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:49:20 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/8] Use atomic_t for ucounts reference counting
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 03:19:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> It just saturates, and doesn't have the "don't do this" case, which
> the ucounts case *DOES* have.
Right -- I saw that when digging through the thread. I'm honestly
curious, though, why did the 0-day bot find a boot crash? (I can't
imagine ucounts wrapped in 0.4 seconds.) So it looked like an
increment-from-zero case, which seems like it would be a bug?
> I know you are attached to refcounts, but really: they are not only
> more expensive, THEY LITERALLY DO THE WRONG THING.
Heh, right -- I'm not arguing that refcount_t MUST be used, I just didn't
see the code path that made them unsuitable: hitting INT_MAX - 128 seems
very hard to do. Anyway, I'll go study it more to try to understand what
I'm missing.
--
Kees Cook
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.
