On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 01:06:19PM +0200, Elena Reshetova wrote: >> refcount_t type and corresponding API should be >> used instead of atomic_t when the variable is used as >> a reference counter. This allows to avoid accidental >> refcounter overflows that might lead to use-after-free >> situations. >> >> Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Hans Liljestrand <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: David Windsor <[email protected]> > > That SOB chain tells me that you wrote the patch and Hans, Kees and > David handled it in some way and the last one - David - is sending it to > me. It doesn't look like that though.
Perhaps the least inaccurate form of this might be: Inspired by atomic protections in PaX/grsecurity. Suggested-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Windsor <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Hans Liljestrand <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova <[email protected]> As this is something I'd suggested we implement based on the work in PaX/grsecurity, David took the first (and continuing) stab at conversions, Hans did more, and Elena has been doing even more along with the heavy-lifting of keeping the series organized. That way the first SoB is still the author, the last SoB is still the email sender, and everyone's name is mentioned. Or just: Inspired by atomic protections in PaX/grsecurity, based on work from David Windsor, Hans Liljestrand, and myself. Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova <[email protected]> I'm not picky -- I just want to see the conversion to refcount_t happen, and everyone in Elena's SoB list has done work on it... -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
