RE: [PATCH 2/4] x86: convert threshold_bank.cpus from atomic_t to refcount_t
From: Reshetova, Elena
Date: Mon Feb 20 2017 - 07:20:17 EST
> 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 <elena.reshetova@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: David Windsor <dwindsor@xxxxxxxxx>
> 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.
> So what are you trying to express with it?
Whole refcount conversion was a long piece of work and the above people contributed to this code either as
writes or reviewers or both. I am primary writer of the code and I am handing patches in our tree and sending them out,
so how exactly the above should look like?
Please note that we have about 300 patches and if I have to modify each sign-off to
reflect who contributed to each commit in what particular way, I will go insane.