On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> 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.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. Perhaps the least inaccurate form of this might be: Inspired by atomic protections in PaX/grsecurity. Suggested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: David Windsor <dwindsor@xxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@xxxxxxxxx> 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.reshetova@xxxxxxxxx> 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
