linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:10:09 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Edward Falk <efalk@...gle.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()

Edward Falk wrote:
> Add spin_lock_string_flags and _raw_spin_lock_flags() to 
> asm-x86_64/spinlock.h so that _spin_lock_irqsave() has the same 
> semantics on x86_64 as it does on i386 and does *not* have interrupts 
> disabled while it is waiting for the lock.
> 
> This fix is courtesy of Michael Davidson

So, what's the bug? You shouldn't rely on these semantics anyway
because you should never expect to wait for a spinlock for so long
(and it may be the case that irqs can't be enabled anyway).

BTW. you should be cc'ing Andi Kleen (x86+/-64 maintainer) on
this type of stuff.

No comments on the merits of adding this feature. I suppose parity
with i386 is a good thing, though.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/