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: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:23:49 +0200 From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org> To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>, Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Uses for memory barriers > This can't be right. Together 1 and 2 would obviate the need for > wmb(). > The CPU doing "STORE A; STORE B" will always see the operations > occuring > in program order by 1, and hence every other CPU would always see them > occurring in the same order by 2 -- even without wmb(). > > Either 2 is too strong, or else what you mean by "perceived" isn't > sufficiently clear. 2. is only for multiple stores to a _single_ memory location -- you use wmb() to order stores to _separate_ memory locations. Segher - 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