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 06:51:17 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
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

On 06/28/2017 05:58 AM, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> 
>> 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. 

As far as I'm concerned, there's no need for a discussion on these. If
the other patches go in to make it as light weight as what we currently
have, then I'm fine with it. I can queue it up for post initial merge
submission.

-- 
Jens Axboe