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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41C14F79@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 19 Nov 2016 07:14:08 +0000
From:   "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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.

Ok, I think I managed to fix it. Hope it looks better now. 
 
> > 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.

I am using coccinelle to find all occurrences, but I do the changes only in semi-automated fashion.
Each change needs a proper manual review anyway and often one variable usage is spread between different headers/source files,
so I prefer not to go to full automation and then not being sure what I have done.