netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] rds: introduce acquire/release ordering in acquire/release_in

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: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:30:27 +0000
From: patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@...nel.org
To: Yewon Choi <woni9911@...il.com>
Cc: allison.henderson@...cle.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, rds-devel@....oracle.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, threeearcat@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] rds: introduce acquire/release ordering in
 acquire/release_in_xmit()

Hello:

This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (main)
by Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>:

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:28:38 +0900 you wrote:
> acquire/release_in_xmit() work as bit lock in rds_send_xmit(), so they
> are expected to ensure acquire/release memory ordering semantics.
> However, test_and_set_bit/clear_bit() don't imply such semantics, on
> top of this, following smp_mb__after_atomic() does not guarantee release
> ordering (memory barrier actually should be placed before clear_bit()).
> 
> Instead, we use clear_bit_unlock/test_and_set_bit_lock() here.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [net,v2] rds: introduce acquire/release ordering in acquire/release_in_xmit()
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/1422f28826d2

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html