Re: [PATCH 22/25] Generic dynamic per cpu refcounting

[Kent Overstreet]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:42:17PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:34:52PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:29:25AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> >> > There's some kind of symmetry going on here, and if I'd been awake more
> >> > in college I could probably say exactly why it works, but it does.
> >> 
> >> I think the catch is that using only a 32 bit counter is something the 
> >> user could arbitrarily control the sum of all parts.  I think a 64 bit 
> >> counter may be required to ensure no overflow occurs.  Otherwise, an 
> >> overflow could result in a premature free when there are still 2^32 
> >> objects active thanks to a malicious user (possible on systems with lots 
> >> of memory these days -- remote, but possible).
> >
> > That's no different from regular atomic_t - but you're right, we
> > should be using size_t for anything userspace can manipulate.
> 
> The regular atomic_t is limited in ways that you are not.
> See my original mail.

I don't follow, can you explain?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/