linux-kernel - Re: [tip:locking/core] refcount_t: Introduce a special purpose refcount type

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2017 19:00:20 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/core] refcount_t: Introduce a special purpose
 refcount type

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 09:48:42AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> > Linus asked to please make this real C code.
> 
> No objection from me, but I'm curious to see the conversation. Where
> did this discussion happen? (I'm curious to see the reasoning behind
> the decisions about the various trade-offs.)

I think Linus' email ended up being private; not much discussion other
than him saying he would like to see this.

Given the current state of code generation I wasn't in a state to argue
much. We can always revisit later.

> > And since size then isn't an issue what so ever anymore, remove the
> > debug knob and make all WARN()s unconditional.
> 
> Are you still going to land the x86 WARN_ON improvements?

Yes, once I manage to eke some response out of the relevant arch
maintainers on the subject ;-)