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: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:19:20 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Uses for memory barriers On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:51:29AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Alan Stern wrote: > >On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >>I don't think that need be the case if one of the CPUs that has written > >>the variable forwards the store to a subsequent load before it reaches > >>the cache coherency (I could be wrong here). So if that is the case, then > >>your above example would be correct. > > > >I don't understand your comment. Are you saying it's possible for two > >CPUs to observe the same two writes and see them occurring in opposite > >orders? > > If store forwarding is able to occur outside cache coherency protocol, > then I don't see why not. I would also be interested to know if this > is the case on real systems. We are discussing multiple writes to the same variable, correct? Just checking... Thanx, Paul - 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