linux-kernel - Re: [patch][rfc] x86, mutex: non-atomic unlock (and a rant)

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:	Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:09:59 +0300
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch][rfc] x86, mutex: non-atomic unlock (and a rant)

[Cyrill Gorcunov - Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 07:46:26PM +0300]
| 
| The other option could be that we put two mem-write operations
| like
| 	int tmp;
| 	atomic_set(&lock->count, 1);
| 	tmp = lock->waiters;
| 	rmb();
| 	lock->waiters = tmp;
| 	if (unlikely(lock->waiters))
| 		fail_fn(lock);
| 
| Which should work faster then cpuid (and we have to be sure somehow
| that gcc doesn't suppress this redundant operations).
|

And which has nothing to do with OoO mem-read, and wouldn't
work. Sorry for noise.
 
	-- Cyrill
--
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/