> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 04:48:00PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Elena Reshetova > >> <elena.reshetova@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Now we have at least x86 support for ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT merged and > >> > arm and others on their way. > >> > > >> > Changes in v5: > >> > * Kees catched that the following changes in > >> > perf_event_context.refcount and futex_pi_state.refcount > >> > are not correct now when ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT is enabled: > >> > - WARN_ON(!atomic_inc_not_zero(refcount)); > >> > + refcount_inc(refcount); > >> > So they are now changed back to using refcount_inc_not_zero. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Andrew, are you able to carry these patches in -mm, since they span a > >> bunch of core kernel areas? > > > > No.. these patches should go through the regular trees that maintain > > these various parts. > > Okay, sounds fine. Elena, can you split these up? (You'll probably > have to examine MAINTAINERS and/or git history for each patch...) Well, I can do this, but patches are already fully independent for cherry-pick and all maintainers should be in the CC list, so I was hoping people can pull into their trees from this series. But if people want to split, I can do a split... Best Regards, Elena. > > -Kees > > -- > Kees Cook > Pixel Security
