bug-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 03/11] include: add lock-less reference counting primitives


From: Neal H. Walfield
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] include: add lock-less reference counting primitives
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:58:32 +0200
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL/10.8 Emacs/23.4 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)

At Tue, 13 May 2014 13:47:51 +0200,
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> 
> Neal H. Walfield, le Tue 13 May 2014 13:44:37 +0200, a écrit :
> > At Tue, 13 May 2014 12:52:03 +0200,
> > Justus Winter wrote:
> > > Quoting Neal H. Walfield (2014-05-13 09:44:21)
> > > > At Mon, 12 May 2014 12:05:41 +0200,
> > > > Justus Winter wrote:
> > > > > +/* Decrement REF.  Return the result of the operation.  This function
> > > > > +   uses atomic operations.  It is not required to serialize calls to
> > > > > +   this function.  */
> > > > > +static inline unsigned int
> > > > > +refcount_deref (refcount_t *ref)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +  return __atomic_sub_fetch (ref, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > > > > +}
> > > > 
> > > > How about adding assert(*ref >= 0)?
> > > 
> > > It is there, you just can't see it because I optimized it away (as gcc
> > > would, as refcount_t is unsigned ;).
> > 
> > I meant assert(*ref > 0), sorry.
> 
> Well, I'd rather check that the result didn't underflow, otherwise you
> may miss it in some rare conditions.

Good point.  The assert that I proposed would introduce a TOCTTOU bug.

:) Neal
 



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]