linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/11] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write

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:	Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:53:49 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
	Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:49:43PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 13-04-16 12:27:31, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'm testing your patches today, if they are otherwise OK [...]
> > > 
> > > got this build failure:
> > > 
> > >   ./arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h:106:2: error: ‘asm’ operand has impossible constraints
> > 
> > Hmm, I have no idea why 64b didn't have problem with the asm but 32b
> > complains. Anyway, the following makes both happy. I have checked the
> > generated code for 64b and it hasn't changed after the patch. 32b also
> > seems to be generating a proper code. My gcc asm()-foo is rather weak so
> > I would feel better if somebody double checked after me.
> 
> I completely blow at this gcc-asm constraints thing too :/
> 
> In any case, Ingo will you look after the rest of these patches, or do
> you want me to pick up the remaining bits?

Yeah, it's on my list!

Thanks,

	Ingo