On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:11:13AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kees I I have a concern:
>
> __must_check bool refcount_add_not_zero(unsigned int i, refcount_t *r)
> {
> unsigned int new, val = atomic_read(&r->refs);
>
> do {
> if (!val)
> return false;
>
> if (unlikely(val == UINT_MAX))
> return true;
>
> new = val + i;
> if (new < val)
> new = UINT_MAX;
>
> } while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(&r->refs, &val, new));
>
> WARN_ONCE(new == UINT_MAX, "refcount_t: saturated; leaking memory.\n");
>
> return true;
> }
>
> Why in the world do you succeed when you the value saturates????
Why not? On saturation the object will leak and returning a reference to
it is always good.
> From a code perspective that is bizarre. The code already has to handle
> the case when the counter does not increment.
I don't see it as bizarre, we turned an overflow/use-after-free into a
leak. That's the primary mechanism here.
As long as we have a reference to a leaked object, we might as well use
it, its not going anywhere.
> Fixing the return value would move refcount_t into the realm of
> something that is desirable because it has bettern semantics and
> is more useful just on a day to day correctness point of view. Even
> ignoring the security implications.
It changes the semantics between inc_not_zero() and inc(). It also
complicates the semantics of inc_not_zero(), where currently the failure
implies the count is 0 and means no-such-object, you complicate matters
by basically returning 'busy'.
That is a completely new class of failure that is actually hard to deal
with, not to mention that it completely destroys refcount_inc_not_zero()
being a 'simple' replacement for atomic_inc_not_zero().
In case of the current failure, the no-such-object, we can fix that by
creating said object. But what to do on 'busy' ? Surely you don't want
to create another. You'd have to somehow retrofit something to wait on
in every user.
