[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1f12b3569565fa8590b45cc2fbe7c176ca7c5184.camel@hammerspace.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 14:43:26 +0000
From: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>
To: "tanxin.ctf@...il.com" <tanxin.ctf@...il.com>,
"xiyuyang19@...an.edu.cn" <xiyuyang19@...an.edu.cn>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"chuck.lever@...cle.com" <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kolga@...app.com" <kolga@...app.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"bfields@...ldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
"anna.schumaker@...app.com" <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "yuanxzhang@...an.edu.cn" <yuanxzhang@...an.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Convert from atomic_t to refcount_t on
rpc_clnt->cl_count
On Sat, 2021-07-17 at 18:18 +0800, Xiyu Yang wrote:
> refcount_t type and corresponding API can protect refcounters from
> accidental underflow and overflow and further use-after-free
> situations.
>
Have you tested this patch? As far as I remember, the reason why we
never converted is that refcount_inc() gets upset and WARNs when you
bump a zero refcount, like we do very much on purpose in
rpc_free_auth(). Is that no longer the case?
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@...merspace.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists