[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41C1196C@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:34:48 +0000
From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo
Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
Subject: RE: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC
On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 09:23 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 12:31 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > Keeping the implementation details of refcount_t and stats_t
> > > opaque to the users should discourage misuse...
> >
> > I suspect a lack of inc_not_zero and dec_and_test would be the
> > biggest things discouraging misuse of stats_t for reference counting
> > :)
>
> Right, but it's the continuing atomic_t use that concerns me...
>Can we remove inc_not_zero and dec_and_test functionality from the atomic_t macros?
If you go this route, atomic*_add_unless also needs to be removed, since there are quite some cases when it is used for refcount functionality.
I have a coccinelle rule now that found about 15 usages of it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
