Re: [PATCH 3/9] tools: convert comm_str.refcnt from atomic_t to refcount_t

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Em Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 05:33:50PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 05:34:57PM +0200, Elena Reshetova escreveu:
> > refcount_t type and corresponding API should be
> > used instead of atomic_t when the variable is used as
> > a reference counter. This allows to avoid accidental
> > refcounter overflows that might lead to use-after-free
> > situations.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: David Windsor <dwindsor@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> You are doing two things (well three) things here:
> 
> 1. converting to refcnt.h
> 
> 2. Initiationg the refcount to 1, which makes this take place:
> 
> [acme@jouet linux]$ m
> make: Entering directory '/home/acme/git/linux/tools/perf'
>   BUILD:   Doing 'make -j4' parallel build
> Warning: arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h differs from kernel
>   CC       /tmp/build/perf/util/comm.o
>   INSTALL  trace_plugins
> util/comm.c:16:25: error: âcomm_str__getâ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>  static struct comm_str *comm_str__get(struct comm_str *cs)
>                          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> mv: cannot stat '/tmp/build/perf/util/.comm.o.tmp': No such file or directory
> /home/acme/git/linux/tools/build/Makefile.build:101: recipe for target '/tmp/build/perf/util/comm.o' failed
> make[4]: *** [/tmp/build/perf/util/comm.o] Error 1
> /home/acme/git/linux/tools/build/Makefile.build:144: recipe for target 'util' failed
> make[3]: *** [util] Error 2
> Makefile.perf:523: recipe for target '/tmp/build/perf/libperf-in.o' failed
> make[2]: *** [/tmp/build/perf/libperf-in.o] Error 2
> Makefile.perf:204: recipe for target 'sub-make' failed
> make[1]: *** [sub-make] Error 2
> Makefile:108: recipe for target 'install-bin' failed
> make: *** [install-bin] Error 2
> make: Leaving directory '/home/acme/git/linux/tools/perf'
> [acme@jouet linux]$
> 
> 3) not test building your patches :-\
> 
> I'll let this pass this time, minor, I am removing the now unused
> comm_str__get() function.

But it can't get unused, because the comm_str__findnew() may return an
existing entry, that _needs_ to get its refcount bumped, that is the
reason for this refcount to be there... reinstating it:

#0  0x00007ffff522491f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1  0x00007ffff522651a in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#2  0x00007ffff5268200 in __libc_message () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#3  0x00007ffff527188a in _int_free () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#4  0x00007ffff52752bc in free () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#5  0x000000000051125f in comm_str__put (cs=0x35038e0) at util/comm.c:20
#6  0x00000000005115b3 in comm__free (comm=0x6f4ee90) at util/comm.c:113
#7  0x0000000000511e10 in thread__delete (thread=0x6f4ee10) at util/thread.c:81
#8  0x0000000000511f0e in thread__put (thread=0x6f4ee10) at util/thread.c:103
#9  0x0000000000504ea6 in machine__process_fork_event (machine=0x21f4bf8, event=0x7fffed6b54a0, sample=0x7fffffff8420) at util/machine.c:1496
#10 0x0000000000505092 in machine__process_event (machine=0x21f4bf8, event=0x7fffed6b54a0, sample=0x7fffffff8420) at util/machine.c:1544
#11 0x0000000000451ae9 in perf_top__mmap_read_idx (top=0x7fffffffa7c0, idx=3) at builtin-top.c:844
#12 0x0000000000451bb6 in perf_top__mmap_read (top=0x7fffffffa7c0) at builtin-top.c:857
#13 0x0000000000452229 in __cmd_top (top=0x7fffffffa7c0) at builtin-top.c:1002
#14 0x00000000004536a3 in cmd_top (argc=0, argv=0x7fffffffe150, prefix=0x0) at builtin-top.c:1332
#15 0x00000000004b82a8 in run_builtin (p=0xa17cd0 <commands+336>, argc=4, argv=0x7fffffffe150) at perf.c:359
#16 0x00000000004b8515 in handle_internal_command (argc=4, argv=0x7fffffffe150) at perf.c:421
#17 0x00000000004b865a in run_argv (argcp=0x7fffffffdf9c, argv=0x7fffffffdf90) at perf.c:467
#18 0x00000000004b8a5d in main (argc=4, argv=0x7fffffffe150) at perf.c:614 

And this brings us to my learning experience, i.e. this should've been caught
by this machinery, right? But that only if I leaked this object, right?

I need to read more on this, that is for sure ;-)

- Arnaldo