linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] md: raid5: use refcount_t for reference counting instead atomic

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, 23 May 2018 14:50:07 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] md: raid5: use refcount_t for reference counting
 instead atomic_t

On 2018-05-23 14:36:15 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Most changes are 1:1 replacements except for
> > 	BUG_ON(atomic_inc_return(&sh->count) != 1);
> 
> That doesn't look right, 'inc_return == 1' implies inc-from-zero, which
> is not allowed by refcount.
> 
> > which has been turned into
> >         refcount_inc(&sh->count);
> >         BUG_ON(refcount_read(&sh->count) != 1);
> 
> And that is racy, you can have additional increments in between.

so do we stay with the atomic* API here or do we extend refcount* API?

Sebastian