[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [kernel-hardening] Re: Add overflow protection to kref
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Djalal Harouni <> wrote:
>> 2) what to do with architectures-loosers?
> There is lib/atomic64.c but with a static hashed array of raw_spinlocks.

Even leaving aside performance impact of atomic64_t (and probably
in most cases the performance of kref is not important at all), it is
unfortunate to bloat the size from 4 bytes to 8 bytes.

It seems much better to have some out-of-line code for overflow
checking rather than increasing the size of every data structure
that embeds a kref.

Greg, I'm not sure why you're opposed to adding this checking...
it's pretty clear that buggy error paths that forget to do a put are
pretty common and will continue to be common in new code, and
making them harder to exploit seems pretty sane to me.

What's the downside?

- R.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-18 02:47    [W:0.068 / U:2.744 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site