Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] kref: Add kref_read()
From: Kees Cook
Date: Thu Nov 17 2016 - 14:34:58 EST
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:58:38AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> What I mean to say is that while the refcnt here should clearly be
>> converted to kref or refcount_t, it looks like locked_vm should become
>> a new stats_t. However, it seems weird for locked_vm to ever wrap
> No, its not a statistic. Also, I'm far from convinced stats_t is an
> actually useful thing to have.
It's useful because its introduction creates a type that can't be
trivially used for refcounting (i.e. hard to make the mistake of using
stats_t for refcounting), and replacing atomic_t statistic counters
with stats_t reduces the effort required to do the initial (and
on-going) audit for misuse of atomic_t as a refcounter.
> refcount_t brought special semantics that clearly are different from
> regular atomic_t, stats_t would not, so why would it need to exist.
Your original suggestion about stats_t showed how its accessor API
would be a very small subset of the regular atomic_t set. I think that
reduction in accidental misuse has value.
> Not to mention that you seem over eager to apply it, which doesn't
> inspire confidence.
I'd like to get to the point where auditing for mistakes in this area
is tractable. :) If atomic_t is only used for non-stats and
non-refcount, it's much much easier to examine and reason about.