netdev - Re: [patch V2 4/4] net: dst: Switch to rcuref

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]

Date:   Wed, 08 Mar 2023 01:00:16 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Wangyang Guo <wangyang.guo@...el.com>,
        Arjan van De Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 4/4] net: dst: Switch to rcuref_t reference counting

On Tue, Mar 07 2023 at 09:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 4:57 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>
>> -       atomic_t                __refcnt;       /* 64-bit offset 64 */
>> +       rcuref_t                __refcnt;       /* 64-bit offset 64 */
>
>> -       atomic_t                __refcnt;       /* 32-bit offset 64 */
>> +       rcuref_t                __refcnt;       /* 32-bit offset 64 */
>
> I assume any mis-use is caught by typechecking, but I'd be even
> happier if you changed the name of the member when you fundamentally
> change the use model for it (eg "__refcnt" -> "__rcuref" or
> something).
>
> Or was there some reason for not doing that?

Other than sheer laziness? No. You have a valid point and I should have
thought about that myself.

Thanks for calling me out on that.

       tglx