linux-kernel - Re: [patches] Re: [GIT PULL] RISC-V Cleanups and ABI Fixes for 4.15-rc2

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:   Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:03:45 +0100
From:   Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ups.riscv.org,
        stern@...land.harvard.edu, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [patches] Re: [GIT PULL] RISC-V Cleanups and ABI Fixes for
 4.15-rc2

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 12:59:35PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 19:20:02 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@...il.com wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:39:12PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> >>      RISC-V: Remove smb_mb__{before,after}_spinlock()
> >
> >I wonder whether you really meant to remove smp_mb__after_spinlock():
> >on the one hand, this primitive doesn't seem "obsolete" (as suggested
> >by the commit message); on the other hand, the Draft Specification at
> >
> >  https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151218405830993&w=2
> >
> >suggests that you need "to strengthen" the generic implementation for
> >this primitive (considered the current spinlock.h in riscv).  What am
> >I missing?
> 
> The comment was incorrect, which caused me to incorrectly remove the fence
> from our port.  I just sent out a patch (well, actually, I did last night --
> I just found this email sitting in a buffer...).
> 
>  https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/6/1136

Thank you for the clarification (and for the patch),

  Andrea


> 
> Thanks for catching this!