linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 23/31] arch,s390: Convert smp_mb_

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:	Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:50:47 +0100
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, will.deacon@....com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/31] arch,s390: Convert smp_mb__*

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 07:47:52AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> As per the existing implementation; implement the new one using
> smp_mb().
> 
> AFAICT the s390 compare-and-swap does imply a barrier, however there
> are some immediate ops that seem to be singly-copy atomic and do not
> imply a barrier. One such is the "ni" op (which would be
> and-immediate) which is used for the constant clear_bit
> implementation. Therefore s390 needs full barriers for the
> {before,after} atomic ops.

That is correct... and made me look again into the recent bitops and
atomic changes I made.
Looks like I missed to add some mandatory memory barriers. Oh well.

--
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/