On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 05:38:55PM +0000, Dmitry Safonov wrote:

1. With CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL=n static_key_slow_inc() doesn't have any
   protection against key->enabled refcounter overflow.
2. With CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL=y static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked()
   still may turn the refcounter negative as (v + 1) may overflow.

key->enabled is indeed a ref-counter as it's documented in multiple
places: top comment in jump_label.h, Documentation/staging/static-keys.rst,
etc.

As -1 is reserved for static key that's in process of being enabled,
functions would break with negative key->enabled refcount:
- for CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL=n negative return of static_key_count()
  breaks static_key_false(), static_key_true()
- the ref counter may become 0 from negative side by too many
  static_key_slow_inc() calls and lead to use-after-free issues.

These flaws result in that some users have to introduce an additional
mutex and prevent the reference counter from overflowing themselves,
see bpf_enable_runtime_stats() checking the counter against INT_MAX / 2.

Prevent the reference counter overflow by checking if (v + 1) > 0.
Change functions API to return whether the increment was successful.

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Safonov <redacted>
Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

This looks good to me:

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>

What is the plan for merging this? I'm assuming it would want to go
through the network tree, but as already noted earlier it depends on a
patch I have in tip/locking/core.

Now I checked, tip/locking/core is *just* that one patch, so it might be
possible to merge that branch and this series into the network tree and
note that during the pull request to Linus.