Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:01:58 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com> Cc: Liljestrand Hans <ishkamiel@...il.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 Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:10:21PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > Is it ok to add at least refcount_inc_if_zero() ? Of course not. > We already have refcount_dec_if_one(), reffcount_dec_not_one() and > refcount_inc_not_zero(), so this one is the only missing one and would > greatly help in couple of cases. No, its absolutely insane. 0 means its freed, you cannot get another reference at that point. If you have code that relies on that, its broken.
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.