[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7d8f86ab-4333-afa1-6523-e42ae5c7d9b2@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:13:37 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: corbet@....net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, shuah@...nel.org,
rafael@...nel.org, johannes@...solutions.net, lenb@...nel.org,
james.morse@....com, tony.luck@...el.com, bp@...en8.de,
arve@...roid.com, tkjos@...roid.com, maco@...roid.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, christian@...uner.io, hridya@...gle.com,
surenb@...gle.com, minyard@....org, arnd@...db.de,
mchehab@...nel.org, rric@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Introduce Simple atomic and non-atomic counters
On 9/25/20 5:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 05:47:14PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> -- Addressed Kees's comments:
>> 1. Non-atomic counters renamed to counter_simple32 and counter_simple64
>> to clearly indicate size.
>> 2. Added warning for counter_simple* usage and it should be used only
>> when there is no need for atomicity.
>> 3. Renamed counter_atomic to counter_atomic32 to clearly indicate size.
>> 4. Renamed counter_atomic_long to counter_atomic64 and it now uses
>> atomic64_t ops and indicates size.
>> 5. Test updated for the API renames.
>> 6. Added helper functions for test results printing
>> 7. Verified that the test module compiles in kunit env. and test
>> module can be loaded to run the test.
>
> Thanks for all of this!
>
>> 8. Updated Documentation to reflect the intent to make the API
>> restricted so it can never be used to guard object lifetimes
>> and state management. I left _return ops for now, inc_return
>> is necessary for now as per the discussion we had on this topic.
>
> I still *really* do not want dec_return() to exist. That is asking for
> trouble. I'd prefer inc_return() not exist either, but I can live with
> it. ;)
>
Thanks. I am equally concerned about adding anything that can be used to
guard object lifetimes. So I will make sure this set won't expand and
plan to remove dec_return() if we don't find any usages.
thanks,
-- Shuah
Powered by blists - more mailing lists