linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/qrwlock: fix write unlock issue in big endian

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:	Thu, 02 Jun 2016 19:01:17 +0800
From:	xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	waiman.long@...com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/qrwlock: fix write unlock issue in big endian


On 2016年06月02日 18:44, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 6:09:08 PM CEST Pan Xinhui wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
>> index 54a8e65..eadd7a3 100644
>> --- a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
>> @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ static inline void queued_read_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
>>    */
>>   static inline void queued_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
>>   {
>> -       smp_store_release((u8 *)&lock->cnts, 0);
>> +       (void)atomic_sub_return_release(_QW_LOCKED, &lock->cnts);
>>   }
>
> Isn't this more expensive than the existing version?
>
yes, a little more expensive than the existing version
But does this is generic code, I am not sure how it will impact the performance on other archs.

If you like
we calculate the correct address to set to NULL
say,
static inline void queued_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
{
u8 *wl = lock;

#ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN
wl += 3;
#endif
smp_store_release(wl, 0);

}



> 	Arnd
>