On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:45:30PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> 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 <elena.reshet...@intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hans Liljestrand <ishkam...@gmail.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Windsor <dwind...@gmail.com>
> >
> > 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 <keesc...@chromium.org>
> Reviewed-by: David Windsor <dwind...@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Hans Liljestrand <ishkam...@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshet...@intel.com>
>
>
> 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 <elena.reshet...@intel.com>
>
>
> I'm not picky -- I just want to see the conversion to refcount_t
Me neither - both look good to me and actually explain what the SOB
chain was trying to say.
Thanks!
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
