[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170127095801.GG6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:58:01 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.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 Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 03:14:41PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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. :)
Nothing much, except lack of time. I spend the last several days hunting
bugs, that trumps new features on my todo list.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists