Re: [PATCH 15/19] kernel: convert audit_tree.count from atomic_t to refcount_t

[Paul Moore]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Reshetova, Elena
<elena.reshetova@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Elena Reshetova
>> <elena.reshetova@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > 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>
>> > ---
>> >  kernel/audit_tree.c | 8 ++++----
>> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> No objection on my end, same for patch 16/19.
>>
>> I have no problem merging both these patches into the audit/next
>> branch after the merge window, is that your goal or are you merging
>> these via a different tree?
>
> Thank you Paul! I think it is better if they go through the trees they supposed to go through
> since this way they would get more testing and etc. So, please take the relevant ones to your tree when the time is right.
>
> After the first round, I guess we will see what patches are not propagating and then maybe take them via Kees tree.

I just realized that include/linux/refcount.h didn't make it into
v4.10 which means there is going to be delay until I merge them into
the audit tree (I don't base the tree on -rc releases except under
extreme circumstances).  I've got the patches queued up in a private
holding branch (I added #includes BTW) so I won't forget, but as a
FYI, they likely won't make it in until v4.12.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com