All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Jan Glauber <jglauber@marvell.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair <jnair@marvell.com>,
	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] arm64: kernel: implement fast refcount checking
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:27:07 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201907221024.3BC2ABB13A@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190722171141.3cgmw5ej7p2caddn@willie-the-truck>

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 06:11:42PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 09:43:54AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > (Also, what happened to the *_checked() variations?)
> 
> The new implementation is intended to replace the *_checked() variants,
> and the discrepancy in naming doesn't make any sense to me once everything
> is inline in the header file. Am I missing something?

I haven't looked at the resulting builds, but the reason for the
_checked() macro stuff was to provide a way for callers to opt into a
checked refcount_t regardless of the state of REFCOUNT_FULL (especially
for architectures without special refcount handling). If that is
retained, then all is well. It just looked odd to me in the patch.

-- 
Kees Cook

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-22 17:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-19 10:54 [PATCH v5] arm64: kernel: implement fast refcount checking Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-19 10:56 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-20 11:03   ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-20 18:10 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-24  6:37 ` Hanjun Guo
2019-07-03 13:40 ` Will Deacon
2019-07-03 18:12   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-07-10 12:21     ` Will Deacon
2019-07-15 12:44       ` Jan Glauber
2019-07-17 12:53       ` Hanjun Guo
2019-07-17 13:23       ` Hanjun Guo
2019-07-22 16:43       ` Kees Cook
2019-07-22 17:11         ` Will Deacon
2019-07-22 17:27           ` Kees Cook [this message]
2019-07-29 17:24             ` Will Deacon
2019-07-29 21:38               ` Kees Cook

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201907221024.3BC2ABB13A@keescook \
    --to=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
    --cc=jglauber@marvell.com \
    --cc=jnair@marvell.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.