Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754531AbcKPKJo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:09:44 -0500
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:39566 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752278AbcKPKJm (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:09:42 -0500
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:09:25 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        David Windsor <dave@progbits.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] kref: Add kref_read()
Message-ID: <20161116100925.GM3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20161114173946.501528675@infradead.org>
 <20161114174446.486581399@infradead.org>
 <20161115073322.GC28248@kroah.com>
 <20161115080314.GD3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAGXu5jLNduviFkM1A4ozub_n2uB2nAHrhE41BsPFJZq+uhn4Mg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jLNduviFkM1A4ozub_n2uB2nAHrhE41BsPFJZq+uhn4Mg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1127
Lines: 36

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.