On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Eric W. Biederman <ebied...@xmission.com> wrote: > "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshet...@intel.com> writes: > > 2>> Elena Reshetova <elena.reshet...@intel.com> writes: >>> >>> > 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. >>> >>> In this patch you can see all of the uses of the count. >>> What accidental refcount overflows are possible? >> >> Even if one can guarantee and prove that in the current implementation >> there are no overflows possible, we can't say that for >> sure for any future implementation. Bugs might always happen >> unfortunately, but if we convert the refcounter to a safer >> type we can be sure that overflows are not possible. >> >> Does it make sense to you? > > Not for code that is likely to remain unchanged for a decade no. > > This looks like a large set of unautomated changes without any real > thought put into it. That almost always results in a typo somewhere > that breaks things.
This is nonsense. The wrong code would simply emit a warning which are caught very quickly. > So there is no benefit to the code, and a non-zero chance that there > will be a typo breaking the code.
