[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKHZ3O5fy7iBSr3=wci7Np0FCTFtAEFKE=NQWCG1bQ7Og@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 15:14:41 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] kref: Implement using refcount_t
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> Provide refcount_t, an atomic_t like primitive built just for
> refcounting.
>
> It provides overflow and underflow checks as well as saturation
> semantics such that when it overflows, we'll never attempt to free it
> again, ever.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Hi!
I see the other 6 patches from this series are in -next, but the
refcount_t implementation is still missing. What's needed to land this
in -next? It's blocking sending the atomic_t -> refcount_t patches,
which will likely all go through various maintainers, so we need to
have refcount_t first. :)
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Nexus Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists