Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2023 21:39:58 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: print module name on refcount error
Message-ID: <ZQNhjhhpG2aN8Xi6@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20230626123252.73dbc139@endymion.delvare>
 <ZJ9fvQZ4k+zFfXbN@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <ZKLRaq3pzzE2gfws@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <ZKhf8bi/eBDhaihD@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <ZKuaZepw51Nriqr8@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <ZMGJGlJ7XSG+2vjY@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20230828141830.02de4d90@endymion.delvare>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230828141830.02de4d90@endymion.delvare>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 28-08-23 14:18:30, Jean Delvare wrote:
[...]
> > > It would likely be better to use refcount_t instead of atomic_t.  
> > 
> > Patches welcomed.
> 
> Michal, do I understand correctly that this would prevent the case our
> customer had (too many gets), but won't make a difference for actual
> too-many-puts situations?


yes, refcount_t cannot protect from too-many-puts because there is not
real way to protect from those AFAICS. At a certain moment you just drop
to 0 and lose your object and all following that is a UAF. But I do not
think this is actually the interesting case at all.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs