Re: [RFC PATCH 01/11] counters: Introduce counter and counter_atomic
From: Kees Cook
Date: Wed Sep 23 2020 - 18:04:42 EST
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 03:19:08PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 9/23/20 2:58 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 02:48:22PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > On 9/23/20 1:04 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 07:43:30PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > > I would really like these APIs to be _impossible_ to use for object
> > > > lifetime management. To that end, I would like to have all of the
> > > > *_return() functions removed. It should be strictly init, inc, dec,
> > > > read.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes. I am with you on making this API as small as possible so it won't
> > > be used for lifetime mgmt. That means no support for:
> > >
> > > *_test, add_negative etc.
> > >
> > > I started out with just init, inc, dec, read. As I started looking
> > > for candidates that can be converted to counters, I found inc_return()
> > > usages. I think we need inc_return() for sure. I haven't come across
> > > atomic_dec_return() yet.
> > What are the inc_return() cases? If they're not "safe" to use inc() and
> > then read(), then those likely need a closer look at what they're doing.
> 3 in this series I sent. I would say I barely scratched the surface
> when it comes to finding candidates for converting.
> These uses look reasonable to me. Having this inc_return() will save
> making _inc() followed by _read()
I'd like to make sure it's clear that it should not be treated as atomic
(even if it is), so a separate _read(), I think, makes that clear. And
hopefully it'll keep people from ever trying to sneak a _dec_return()
> I will change counter to counter_simple and add a warning that this
> should only be used when atomic isn't needed. I can outline some
> tips for choosing the right one.