Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:56:29 +0100
From:   Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        io-uring <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/8] Use refcount_t for ucounts reference counting
Message-ID: <20210118205629.zro2qkd3ut42bpyq@example.org>
References: <cover.1610722473.git.gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>
 <116c7669744404364651e3b380db2d82bb23f983.1610722473.git.gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjsg0Lgf1Mh2UiJE4sqBDDo0VhFVBUbhed47ot2CQQwfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210118194551.h2hrwof7b3q5vgoi@example.org>
 <CAHk-=wiNpc5BS2BfZhdDqofJx1G=uasBa2Q1eY4cr8O59Rev2A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiNpc5BS2BfZhdDqofJx1G=uasBa2Q1eY4cr8O59Rev2A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:34:29PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:46 AM Alexey Gladkov
> <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry about that. I thought that this code is not needed when switching
> > from int to refcount_t. I was wrong.
> 
> Well, you _may_ be right. I personally didn't check how the return
> value is used.
> 
> I only reacted to "it certainly _may_ be used, and there is absolutely
> no comment anywhere about why it wouldn't matter".

I have not found examples where checked the overflow after calling
refcount_inc/refcount_add.

For example in kernel/fork.c:2298 :

   current->signal->nr_threads++;                           
   atomic_inc(&current->signal->live);                      
   refcount_inc(&current->signal->sigcnt);  

$ semind search signal_struct.sigcnt
def include/linux/sched/signal.h:83  		refcount_t		sigcnt;
m-- kernel/fork.c:723 put_signal_struct 		if (refcount_dec_and_test(&sig->sigcnt))
m-- kernel/fork.c:1571 copy_signal 		refcount_set(&sig->sigcnt, 1);
m-- kernel/fork.c:2298 copy_process 				refcount_inc(&current->signal->sigcnt);

It seems to me that the only way is to use __refcount_inc and then compare
the old value with REFCOUNT_MAX

Since I have not seen examples of such checks, I thought that this is
acceptable. Sorry once again. I have not tried to hide these changes.

-- 
Rgrds, legion