Re: [PATCH 22/25] Generic dynamic per cpu refcounting

[Andi Kleen]

Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:34:52PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:29:25AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>> > There's some kind of symmetry going on here, and if I'd been awake more
>> > in college I could probably say exactly why it works, but it does.
>> 
>> I think the catch is that using only a 32 bit counter is something the 
>> user could arbitrarily control the sum of all parts.  I think a 64 bit 
>> counter may be required to ensure no overflow occurs.  Otherwise, an 
>> overflow could result in a premature free when there are still 2^32 
>> objects active thanks to a malicious user (possible on systems with lots 
>> of memory these days -- remote, but possible).
>
> That's no different from regular atomic_t - but you're right, we
> should be using size_t for anything userspace can manipulate.

The regular atomic_t is limited in ways that you are not.
See my original mail.

-Andi

-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/