Re: [PATCH 1/3] ipc: convert ipc_namespace.count from atomic_t to refcount_t
From: Eric W. Biederman
Date: Mon Jul 10 2017 - 16:40:48 EST
"Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> 2>> Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In this patch you can see all of the uses of the count.
>> >> >> What accidental refcount overflows are possible?
>> >> >
>> >> > Even if one can guarantee and prove that in the current implementation
>> >> > there are no overflows possible, we can't say that for
>> >> > sure for any future implementation. Bugs might always happen
>> >> > unfortunately, but if we convert the refcounter to a safer
>> >> > type we can be sure that overflows are not possible.
>> >> >
>> >> > Does it make sense to you?
>> >> Not for code that is likely to remain unchanged for a decade no.
>> > Can we really be sure for any kernel code about this? And does it make
>> > sense to trust our security on a fact like this?
>> But refcount_t doesn't fix anything. At best it changes a bad bug to a
>> less bad bug. So now my machine OOMS instead of allows a memory
>> overwrite. It still doesn't work.
> Well, it is a step forward from security standpoint. OOMS is really hard
> to exploit vs. memory overwrites. Pretty much all exploits need either
> memory write or memory read, out of memory is really much harder to
OOM in production is a denial of service attack. From a serverity point
of view an OOM can be considered equivalent to a kernel panic and
something that requires a box to reboot.
>From a long term perspective I expect we will need to change all
reference counters to a type where that is not saturating but instead
fails to increment and returns an error. If we want to keep a system
functioning in the face of maxing out a reference count that is the only
way it can truly be done.
>> Plus refcount_t does not provide any safety on the architectures where
>> it is a noop.
> Not sure I understood this. What do you mean by "noop"?
> refcount_t is currently architecture independent.
noop being short for no operation.
I believe there were some/most archicture implementations that define
refcount_t to atomic_t out of performance concerns. I know I saw
patches fly by to that effect. On an architecture where refcount_t is
equivalent to atomic_t the change in these patches is a noop.
>> >> This looks like a large set of unautomated changes without any real
>> >> thought put into it.
>> > We are soon into the end of the first year that we started to look into
>> > refcounter overflow/underflow problem and coming up this far was
>> > not easy enough (just check all the millions of emails on kernel-hardening
>> > mailing list). Each refcount_t conversion candidate was first found by Coccinelle
>> > analysis and then manually checked and converted. The story of
>> > refcount_t API and all discussions go even further.
>> > So you can't really claim that there is no " thought put into it " :)
>> But the conversion of the instance happens without thought and manually.
>> Which is a good recipe for typos. Which is what I am saying.
>> There have been lots of conversions like that in the kernel and
>> practically every one has introduced at least one typo.
> What do you exactly mean by "typo"? Typos should be detected at these
An unintentional mistake. The term "thinko" might be more what I am
thinking of. Many human mistakes are not slips of the fingers but
accidentally giving the wrong command at some level.
> 1) typos like wrong function name etc. can be found at compile time
> (trust me I have found a number of these on the very first iteration with patches)
> 2) "typos" (not sure if it is correct to call them typos) like usage of wrong refcount_t
> API vs. original atomic_t API can be found during internal reviews or reviews by maintainers
This I worry about most as the mental distance from xxx_inc to xxx_dec
can be very short.
> 3) much bigger problem is actually not any typos, but hidden issues that show up only
> in run-time that detect underflows/overflows or inability to increment from zero.
> These only are nasty, but given that refcount_t WARNs left and right about them,
> we can detect them fast.
Which means I worry about those less.
> I don't know what is a better recipe for doing API changes like this?
> Do you have any suggestions?
I would think a semantic patch targeting a specific lock would be less
error prone. I would think that the same semantic patch could be used
from lock to lock with just a change of the lock that is being targeted.
I strongly suspect that would reduce the chance of accident when dealing
with a particular API and being scripted would increase the confidence
in the changes.
>> So from an engineering standpoint it is a very valid question to ask
>> about. And I find the apparent insistence that you don't make typos
>> very disturbing.
>> > That almost always results in a typo somewhere
>> >> that breaks things.
>> >> So there is no benefit to the code, and a non-zero chance that there
>> >> will be a typo breaking the code.
>> > The code is very active on issuing WARNs when anything goes wrong.
>> > Using this feature we have not only found errors in conversions, but
>> > sometimes errors in code itself. So, any bug would be actually much
>> > faster visible than using old atomic_t interface.
>> > In addition by default refcount_t equals to atomic, which also gives a
>> > possibility to make a softer transition and catch all related bugs in couple
>> > of cycles when enabling CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL.
>> But if you make a typo and change one operation for another I don't see
>> how any of that applies.
> It is hard to make a "typo" to change one operation to another. It is not a
> one-two char mismatch error.
Those might be more properly "thinkos" but they do happen.
> When doing these patches we followed the
> logic of "less code changes - better" (since less chances of making mistake),
> so if in some cases functions are changed (like from atomic_sub to
> refcount_sub_and_test(), or from atomic_inc_not_zero() to atomic_inc() etc.)
> there was a reason for making it and the change wasn't automatic and without
> thinking at all. Again, we do have our maintainers also to catch if a change that
> we did doesn't actually work for them right?
In general a maintainers job is make certain the appropriate code review
and due dilligence has happened not nececessarily to perform that code
Changing from atomoic_inc_not_zero to a simple refcount_inc really
troubles me because it makes it harder to switch to something fully