[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEXv5_g=DS4wk0mgZuw-doVCqountb-CxZki1LOoQH-P7W1U4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:42:56 -0500
From: David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] nfsd: add +1 to reference counting scheme for struct nfsd4_session
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:38 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 09:01:15AM -0500, David Windsor wrote:
>> I'm not sure there's another way to accomplish what we need
>> (initializing struct nfsd4_session objects with refcount=1) without
>> also modifying the freeable reference state. After migrating to the
>> refcount_t API, if we leave init_session() as is, the first call to
>> nfsd4_get_session_locked() will fail:
>
> Which is a pretty clear indicator that this code should simply not
> migrate to the recount_t API. Why was it even considered if the
> conversion is obviously broken?
I'm not sure this is a sound argument for not converting to
refcount_t. In other locations in which refcounting schemes are
"unnatural," i.e. freeing refcounted objects when their refcount is -1
(rather than 0), conversion to refcount_t is accomplished by
performing a logical +1 to the overall refcounting scheme. We're
auditing all refcounting corner cases, such as these, to see if
similar solutions can be found.
Thanks,
David
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.
