Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190827163204.29903-1-will@kernel.org> <20190828073052.GL2332@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190828141439.sqnpm5ff4tgyn66r@willie-the-truck> <201908281353.0EFD0776@keescook>
 <CAKv+Gu_Q=o_6xDW_7YTd3J6psqs-o+qBxW4r9MXCBwjmsGpTbQ@mail.gmail.com> <201908311200.926B5C0F@keescook>
In-Reply-To: <201908311200.926B5C0F@keescook>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 31 Aug 2019 23:54:11 +0300
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu899ZsEG43aSQ0nn9suHp-ekKeSMbPRb2OYwsAu=_Q93Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Rework REFCOUNT_FULL using atomic_fetch_* operations
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
        Jan Glauber <jglauber@marvell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 at 22:02, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 08:48:56PM +0300, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > It's been ~2 years since I looked at this code in detail, but IIRC, it
> > looked like the inc-from-zero check was missing from the x86
> > implementation because it requires a load/compare/increment/store
> > sequence instead of a single increment instruction taking a memory
> > operand. Was there more rationale at the time for omitting this
> > particular case, and if so, was it based on a benchmark? Can we run it
> > against this implementation as well?
>
> It was based on providing a protection against the pre-exploitation case
> (overflow: "something bad is about to happen, let's stop it") rather
> than the post-exploitation case (inc from zero, "something bad already
> happened, eek") with absolutely the fewest possible extra cycles, as
> various subsystem maintainers had zero tolerance for any measurable
> changes in refcounting performance.
>

Ah, of course.

> I much prefer the full coverage, even if it's a tiny bit slower. And
> based on the worse-case timings (where literally nothing else is
> happening) it seems like these changes should be WELL under the noise.
>

 Agreed.