[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:52:21 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Liljestrand Hans <ishkamiel@...il.com>
Cc: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>, "aik@...abs.ru" <aik@...abs.ru>,
"david@...son.dropbear.id.au" <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: Conversion from atomic_t to refcount_t: summary of issues
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 05:20:08PM +0200, Liljestrand Hans wrote:
> >
> > Didn't look at the rest, but going by the above blindly converting to
> > refcount_t without prior cleanups isn't a good idea.
>
> Yes, I agree. Do you propose we just leave the weirder cases as
> atmoic_t, or should we try to incorporate needed cleanup in this initial
> patchset?
>
Yes, I would leave them be for now. I imagine all the 'easy' ones is
still a giant pile of patches.
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.
