[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:39:08 +0100
From: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Ubuntu security discussion <ubuntu-hardened@...ts.ubuntu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
pageexec@...email.hu, spender@...ecurity.net
Subject: Re: Re: Add overflow protection to kref
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:37:19PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> pattern, otherwise it is not a true refcounter :) It should be straightforward to
> move to kref.
>
>
> Moving to atomic64_t is attractive, but:
>
> 1) we still should find all atomic_t refcounters. Why not move to kref then?
>
> 2) what to do with architectures-loosers?
There is lib/atomic64.c but with a static hashed array of raw_spinlocks.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Vasiliy Kulikov
> http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
tixxdz
http://opendz.org
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.
