linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 0/5] v3 block subsystem refcounter conversions

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:   Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:58:37 +0000
From:   "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
CC:     James Bottomley <james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp" <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/5] v3 block subsystem refcounter conversions


> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] v3 block subsystem refcounter conversions
> 
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> > On 06/27/2017 05:39 AM, Elena Reshetova wrote:
> >> Changes in v3:
> >> No changes in patches apart from trivial rebases, but now by
> >> default refcount_t = atomic_t and uses all atomic standard operations
> >> unless CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL is enabled. This is a compromize for the
> >> systems that are critical on performance and cannot accept even
> >> slight delay on the refcounter operations.
> >
> > Is that true in 4.12-rc, or is that true in a later release once
> > Linus has pulled those changes in? If the latter, please resend
> > this when those changes are in, thanks.
> 
> It's in -next currently ("locking/refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t
> implementation")

I would really like to start discussion on the these patches asap since it normally takes
 some adjustments etc. before they can be merged and we want many changes to go into
next release round and not to miss the merge window. 

Best Regards,
Elena.

> 
> -Kees
> 
> --
> Kees Cook
> Pixel Security