From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: "Reshetova\, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "peterz\@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "gregkh\@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "akpm\@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "mingo\@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "serge\@hallyn.com" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        "arozansk\@redhat.com" <arozansk@redhat.com>,
        "dave\@stgolabs.net" <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        "keescook\@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@gmail.com>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>
References: <1499417992-3238-1-git-send-email-elena.reshetova@intel.com>
        <1499417992-3238-2-git-send-email-elena.reshetova@intel.com>
        <87bmottgo4.fsf@xmission.com>
        <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B6FF2269B@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
        <87k23gsn4u.fsf@xmission.com>
        <CACVxJT8cgQPWfMK-1zEfB07A5UhiCyvvzY4gy7hjUD0gA=izCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 06:19:32 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CACVxJT8cgQPWfMK-1zEfB07A5UhiCyvvzY4gy7hjUD0gA=izCQ@mail.gmail.com>
        (Alexey Dobriyan's message of "Mon, 10 Jul 2017 12:34:50 +0300")
Message-ID: <87ziccpmij.fsf@xmission.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ipc: convert ipc_namespace.count from atomic_t to refcount_t
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1365
Lines: 37

Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Eric W. Biederman
> <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>> "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com> writes:
>>
>> 2>> Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > 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.
>>>>
>>>> In this patch you can see all of the uses of the count.
>>>> What accidental refcount overflows are possible?
>>>
>>> Even if one can guarantee and prove that in the current implementation
>>> there are no overflows possible, we can't say that for
>>> sure for any future implementation. Bugs might always happen
>>> unfortunately, but if we convert the refcounter to a safer
>>> type we can be sure that overflows are not possible.
>>>
>>> Does it make sense to you?
>>
>> Not for code that is likely to remain unchanged for a decade no.
>>
>> This looks like a large set of unautomated changes without any real
>> thought put into it.  That almost always results in a typo somewhere
>> that breaks things.
>
> This is nonsense. The wrong code would simply emit a warning
> which are caught very quickly.

That depends on the typo.

Eric