[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41C3EFCD@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:48:39 +0000
From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, "Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>
Subject: RE: Re: [RFCv2 PATCH 09/18] net: convert from
atomic_t to refcount_t
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:39 AM, David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
> wrote:
> >> The relevant part of the patch has been cut off, but it appears that
> >> you've fixed some of the issues we identified earlier as corner cases
> >> as to reference counting in net/. In particular, inetpeer.c has its
> >> own garbage collection system in place which frees shared objects when
> >> their reference count became -1 (rather than 0). The proposed
> >> solution was to do a global +1 on this refcounting scheme, then
> >> replace unsupported atomic_*() functions with appropriate refcount_*()
> >> calls.
> >>
> >> When submitting this to netdev, it may make sense to separate out
> >> these changes: first, do a global +1 (while still using atomic_t),
> >> then convert to refcount_t. I'm already working on this now, but I
> >> didn't know if you wanted to follow this approach or not.
> >
> > David, if you've got the global +1 patches ready, let's start feeding
> > those to netdev ASAP. We can convert them to refcount_t more easily
> > after that.
> >
>
> Alright, let me get them in order and I'll submit them to netdev. I
> just wanted to make sure that an alternate approach hadn't been
> decided upon.
>
No, we haven't decided on that.
We had only some +1s, but not for all of it, so if you have a global +1, then it is even better!
Then we can drop +1 parts.
And what do you mean by " The relevant part of the patch has been cut off " ? It is one huge
patch but I got it in full mailed via list. Do you see it corrupted or?
Best Regards,
Elena
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.
