[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170608055655.GB19269@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:56:55 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, arozansk@...hat.com,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t implementation
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:58:31PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Many subsystems will not use refcount_t unless there is a way to build the
> kernel so that there is no regression in speed compared to atomic_t. This
> adds CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL to enable the full refcount_t implementation
> which has the validation but is slightly slower. When not enabled,
> refcount_t uses the basic unchecked atomic_t routines, which results in
> no code changes compared to just using atomic_t directly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists