[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:08:25 -0500
From: David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
To: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 PATCH 09/18] net: convert from atomic_t to refcount_t
It might be my mail client: Gmail won't display the entire patch inline.
On Thursday, January 19, 2017, Reshetova, Elena <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:39 AM, David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> The relevant part of the patch has been cut off, but it appears that
>> >> you've fixed some of the issues we identified earlier as corner cases
>> >> as to reference counting in net/. In particular, inetpeer.c has its
>> >> own garbage collection system in place which frees shared objects when
>> >> their reference count became -1 (rather than 0). The proposed
>> >> solution was to do a global +1 on this refcounting scheme, then
>> >> replace unsupported atomic_*() functions with appropriate refcount_*()
>> >> calls.
>> >>
>> >> When submitting this to netdev, it may make sense to separate out
>> >> these changes: first, do a global +1 (while still using atomic_t),
>> >> then convert to refcount_t. I'm already working on this now, but I
>> >> didn't know if you wanted to follow this approach or not.
>> >
>> > David, if you've got the global +1 patches ready, let's start feeding
>> > those to netdev ASAP. We can convert them to refcount_t more easily
>> > after that.
>> >
>>
>> Alright, let me get them in order and I'll submit them to netdev. I
>> just wanted to make sure that an alternate approach hadn't been
>> decided upon.
>>
>
> No, we haven't decided on that.
> We had only some +1s, but not for all of it, so if you have a global +1,
then it is even better!
> Then we can drop +1 parts.
>
> And what do you mean by " The relevant part of the patch has been cut off
" ? It is one huge
> patch but I got it in full mailed via list. Do you see it corrupted or?
>
> Best Regards,
> Elena
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
