linux-kernel - Re: Uses for memory barriers

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, 24 Oct 2006 10:52:12 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Uses for memory barriers

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 10:07:28AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > How about ld_i(A) => ld_j(A)?  This would say that both loads corresponded
> > to the same store.
> 
> > > How about this instead: "A==>B" means that B sees the value stored by A,
> > > and "A==B" means that A and B are both loads and they see the value from
> > > the same store.  That way we avoid putting a load on the left side of
> > > "==>".
> > 
> > My concern is that "==" might also have connotations of equal values from
> > distinct stores.
> 
> Okay, here's another suggestion: ld_i(A) <=> ld_j(A).  This avoids 
> connotations of ordering and indicates the symmetry of the relation: both 
> loads return data from the same store.

Good point -- will try something like this.

						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/