| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20140212.230506.1305102368255894549.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:05:06 -0500 (EST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org Cc: mst@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jasowang@...hat.com, virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, qinchuanyu@...wei.com, joern@...fs.org, anatol.pomozov@...il.com, nab@...ux-iscsi.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/3] kref: add kref_sub_return From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:39:02 -0800 > Yes, that's horrible as well, but as was already pointed out in this > thread, you can't rely on that value to really be "1" after reading it > due to the way krefs work, what happened if someone else just grabbed > it? > > If all they want is a "count" for when to start polling, then use a > separate atomic count, but don't abuse the kref interface for this, I > don't think that will work properly at all. They want to know which thread of control decrements the count to "1" as buffers are released. That seems entirely reasonable to me. They could add another atomic counter for this, but that's rather silly since the kref already has an atomic they can use for this purpose. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists