linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2] creds: Convert cred.usage to refcount

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2023 16:07:49 -0500
From:   "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
        Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@...app.com>,
        Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] creds: Convert cred.usage to refcount_t

Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 04:10:49PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> [...]
>> extra checks (supposedly) compile down to nothing. It should be possible
>> to build alternate refcount_t handling functions that are just wrappers
>> around atomic_t with no extra checks, for folks who want to really run
>> "fast and loose".
>
> No -- there's no benefit for this. We already did all this work years
> ago with the fast vs full break-down. All that got tossed out since it
> didn't matter. We did all the performance benchmarking and there was no
> meaningful difference -- refcount _is_ atomic with an added check that
> is branch-predicted away. Peter Zijlstra and Will Deacon spent a lot of
> time making it run smoothly. :)

Since you did all of the work should the text size of be growing by a
kilobyte for this change?

Is that expected?

That is a valid concern with this change and it really should be
justified in the change long as someone brought it up.

Eric