[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161117191025.GI3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:10:25 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Cc: David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] kref: Add kref_read()
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 06:02:33PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
>
> > Even if we now find all occurrences of atomic_t used as refcounter
> > (which we cannot actually guarantee in any case unless someone
> > manually reads every line) and convert it to refcount_t, we still have
> > atomic_t type present and new usage of it as refount will crawl in. It
> > is just a matter of time IMO.
>
> >Improve tooling. The patterns shouldn't be _that_ hard to find. Once the tools are good, new code isn't a problem either.
>
> Moreover, thinking of out of tree drivers: you think they would always
> do checkpatch or run some of our tools for security checks?
If they can't be arsed, neither can I. You can't fix the unfixable.
Like I said before, its chasing unicorns.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists