On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 03:14:41PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: >> > Provide refcount_t, an atomic_t like primitive built just for >> > refcounting. >> > >> > It provides overflow and underflow checks as well as saturation >> > semantics such that when it overflows, we'll never attempt to free it >> > again, ever. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org> >> >> Hi! >> >> I see the other 6 patches from this series are in -next, but the >> refcount_t implementation is still missing. What's needed to land this >> in -next? It's blocking sending the atomic_t -> refcount_t patches, >> which will likely all go through various maintainers, so we need to >> have refcount_t first. :) > > Nothing much, except lack of time. I spend the last several days hunting > bugs, that trumps new features on my todo list.
Totally understood. I was just trying to see if there was anything I could help with for it. Are you expecting it to change much from your original posted version? -Kees -- Kees Cook Nexus Security
