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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 22:15:39 +0100 From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] refcount: Implement inc/decrement-and-return functions Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > unsigned int refcount_dec_return(refcount_t *r); > > unsigned int refcount_inc_return(refcount_t *r); > > > > I'm not immediately seeing how wanting 1 to mean unused leads to > requiring these two functions. Did you read the other other part of the description? Further, both functions can be used to accurately trace the refcount (refcount_inc() followed by refcount_read() can't be considered accurate). > If you'll remember, I did that for inode_count and only needed > dec_unless(). I don't remember. inode_count? I can't find such a thing - did you mean i_count? I don't find anything matching "dec_unless.*i_count" either. David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists