| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:48:31 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> Cc: Edward Falk <efalk@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave() On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:10:09 +1000 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote: > Edward Falk wrote: > > Add spin_lock_string_flags and _raw_spin_lock_flags() to > > asm-x86_64/spinlock.h so that _spin_lock_irqsave() has the same > > semantics on x86_64 as it does on i386 and does *not* have interrupts > > disabled while it is waiting for the lock. > > > > This fix is courtesy of Michael Davidson > > So, what's the bug? You shouldn't rely on these semantics anyway > because you should never expect to wait for a spinlock for so long > (and it may be the case that irqs can't be enabled anyway). > > BTW. you should be cc'ing Andi Kleen (x86+/-64 maintainer) on > this type of stuff. > > No comments on the merits of adding this feature. I suppose parity > with i386 is a good thing, though. > We put this into x86 ages ago and Andi ducked the x86_64 patch at the time. I don't recall any reports about the x86 patch (Zwane?) improving or worsening anything. I guess there are some theoretical interrupt latency benefits. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists