[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 01:10:30 +0200
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/17] prmem: documentation
On 01/11/2018 00:57, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:00 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> I _think_ the use-case for atomics is updating the reference counts of
>> objects that are in this write-rare domain. But I'm not entirely clear
>> on that myself either. I just really want to avoid duplicating that
>> stuff.
>
> Sounds nuts. Doing a rare-write is many hundreds of cycles at best. Using that for a reference count sounds wacky.
>
> Can we see a *real* use case before we over complicate the API?
>
Does patch #14 of this set not qualify? ima_htable.len ?
https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2018/10/23/20
--
igor
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.
