Re: [PATCH v2] refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t implementation

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:58:31PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Many subsystems will not use refcount_t unless there is a way to build the
>> kernel so that there is no regression in speed compared to atomic_t. This
>> adds CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL to enable the full refcount_t implementation
>> which has the validation but is slightly slower. When not enabled,
>> refcount_t uses the basic unchecked atomic_t routines, which results in
>> no code changes compared to just using atomic_t directly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Ping. tip maintainers, can you please take this patch to unblock the
refcount_t conversions?

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security