linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] slow_work_execute() needs mb() before test_bit(SLOW_WORK

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:15:10 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
	Steve Dickson <steved@...hat.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Daire Byrne <Daire.Byrne@...mestore.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slow_work_execute() needs mb() before
	test_bit(SLOW_WORK_PENDING)

On 04/16, David Howells wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > But why do we need the barrier before clear_bit(SLOW_WORK_EXECUTING) ?
> > We do have one after test_and_clear_bit(SLOW_WORK_PENDING) above, and it
> > should be enough, no?
>
> No.  There lock is covering work->ops->execute(work) too, and that is after
> the clearance of SLOW_WORK_PENDING.  The UNLOCK-class barrier must go between
> execution and clearance of the execution lock bit.

Ah. Now I see.

It is still not clear to me whether we need a barrier after clear_bit_unlock.

Thanks David!

Oleg.

--
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/