[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 07:43:37 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, "arozansk@...hat.com" <arozansk@...hat.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t implementation
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:45:09AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
>
>> > +static inline __must_check bool refcount_add_not_zero(unsigned int i,
>> > +
>> > refcount_t *r)
>> > +{
>> > + return atomic_add_return(i, &r->refs) != 0;
>> > +}
>>
>> Maybe atomic_add_unless(&r->refs, i, 0) in order to be consistent with the below inc_not_zero implementation?
>
> Yes, atomic_add_return() is strictly incorrect here since the add is
> unconditional.
>
>> > +static inline __must_check bool refcount_sub_and_test(unsigned int i,
>> > +
>> > refcount_t *r)
>> > +{
>> > + return atomic_sub_return(i, &r->refs) == 0;
>> > +}
>>
>> Any reason for not using atomic_sub_and_test() here?
>
>> > +static inline __must_check bool refcount_dec_and_test(refcount_t *r)
>> > +{
>> > + return atomic_dec_return(&r->refs) == 0;
>> > +}
>>
>> Same here: atomic_dec_and_test()?
>
> Both those are better because they return condition codes generated from
> the operand itself.
Ah yes, thanks to both of you for the corrections. I'll send a new version...
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
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.
