On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 06:08:41PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 11:59:13AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > Not sure we have a list for library code, but this might be of interest > > to anyone who's had to debug refcount issues on refs with lots of users > > (filesystem people), and I know the hardening folks deal with refcounts > > a lot. > > Why not use refcount_t instead of atomic_t?
It's rather pointless here since percpu refcounts don't (and can't) support saturation, and atomic_long_t should always suffice - you'd have to be doing something particularly bizarre for it not to, since refcounts generally count things in memory. Out of curiousity, has overflow of an atomic_long_t refcount ever been observed?
