linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] overlay filesystem v25

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 28 Oct 2014 01:12:14 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] overlay filesystem v25

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:36:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Code making direct use of smp_read_barrier_depends() is harder to read,
> in my experience, but good point on the sparse noise.  Maybe a new
> lockless_dereference() primitive?  Maybe something like the following?
> (Untested, probably does not even build.)
> 
> #define lockless_dereference(p) \
> ({ \
> 	typeof(*p) *_________p1 = ACCESS_ONCE(p); \
> 	smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* Dependency order vs. p above. */ \
> 	_________p1; \
> })

Hmm...  Where would you prefer to put it?  rcupdate.h?
--
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/