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: <CAGXu5jLjeKN8ybVUv52CHNORHrRofE1u1viSSkm8SpEZbTvE-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:07:35 -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 Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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.

Totally understood. I was just trying to see if there was anything I
could help with for it. Are you expecting it to change much from your
original posted version?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Nexus Security