[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 14:21:12 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Windsor <dwindsor@...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>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...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 Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:20:55PM -0500, David Windsor wrote:
> Then are we decided that overflow protection is going to be opt-in?
The wholesale rape of atomic_t as proposed earlier is not going to
happen.
That results in a terrible and inconsistent API, which will only lead to
more terrible code.
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.
