linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an arch doesn't support it

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 6 Dec 2006 13:52:20 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
	akpm@...l.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an arch
 doesn't support it

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> And for those of us with only load-and-zero, that's simply:
> 
> #define load_locked(addr) spin_lock(hash(addr)), *addr
> #define store_exclusive(addr, old, new) \
> 			*addr = new, spin_unlock(hash(addr)), 0
> 
> which is also optimal for us.

This means we tolerate the assignment race for SMP that was pointed out 
earlier?

cmpxchg emulation may then also be tolerable just replace the irq 
enable/disable in David's implementation with taking a spin lock?

-
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/