[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:41:00 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org>,
Elena Reshetova
<elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Thomas
Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter
Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC
On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 18:32 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:09:16PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 09:23 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > Right, but it's the continuing atomic_t use that concerns me...
> >
> > Can we remove inc_not_zero and dec_and_test functionality
> > from the atomic_t macros?
> >
> > It would require fixing all of the in tree code, and after
> > that people with out of tree code would have to switch to
> > refcount_t to make their code work again.
>
> People will just use (atomic_add_return(-1, &refcount) == 0) instead,
> or
> any other variant along those lines.
They could, but switching the variable type to refcount_t
seems like it would be the way of least resistance.
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
