linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] kref: Implement using refcount

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2016 19:53:51 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Cc:     "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "dave@...gbits.org" <dave@...gbits.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] kref: Implement using refcount_t

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 04:58:52PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > Could you please fix you mailer to not unwrap the emails?
> 
> I wish I understand what you mean by "unwrap"... ?

Where I always have lines wrapped at 78 characters, but often when I see
them back in your reply, they're unwrapped and go on forever.

For some reason your mailer reflows text and mucks with whitespace. I
know Outlook likes to do this by default.

> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:47:40AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:

> > Oh, and if we define refcount_t to be just atomic_t underneath, what 
> > about the other atomic_long_t, local_t and atomic64_t cases when it is 
> > used for recounting?  I don't feel good just simply changing them to 
> > become atomic_t under refcount_t wrapper.....
> 
> > Is there anybody using local_t ? That seems 'creative' and highly questionable.
> I am not yet sure about refcounts, but local_t itself is used in couple of places. 

Sure, there's local_t usage, but I'd be very surprised if there's a
single refcount usage among them.

> >As for atomic_long_t there's very few, I'd leave them be for now, 

> Ok, I have started a list on them to keep track, but we need to do
> them also. There is no reason for them not to be refcounts, since so
> far the ones I see are classical refcounts. 

Well, if you get to tools (cocci script or whatever) to reliably work
fork atomic_t, then converting the few atomic_long_t's later should be
trivial.