linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: switch to atomic

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: <Ya+KasdqLmXhB41c@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:23:06 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: switch to atomic_t for request references

On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 08:10:02AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Can you really not understand my dislike of a data type that is
> fundamentally a lazy shortcut and intentionally hides error cases with
> leaks?

I see the distinction; I just don't see it as hiding. refcount_t will
very much generate a splat indicating things need fixing, the leak
simply ensures that it doesn't get worse from there on out.

Anyway, if the code already needs to handle that failure case, such as
inc_not_zero() usage, then there is indeed no additional complexity.