linux-kernel - Re: Introduce atomic_dec_and_lock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180504162102.GQ12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 4 May 2018 18:21:02 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Introduce atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave()

On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 06:07:26PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> do you intend to kill refcount_dec_and_lock() in the longterm?

You meant to say atomic_dec_and_lock() ? Dunno if we ever get there, but
typically dec_and_lock is fairly refcounty, but I suppose it is possible
to have !refcount users, in which case we're eternally stuck with it.

But a quick look at the sites you converted, they all appear to be true
refcounts, and would thus benefit from being converted to refcount_t.