linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Use direct assignment rather than cmpxchg()

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1165702776.1103.162.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:19:36 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Use direct assignment rather than cmpxchg()

>     The problem is where we end up tangling with test_and_set_bit() emulated
>     using spinlocks, and even then it's not a problem _provided_
>     test_and_set_bit() doesn't attempt to modify the word if the bit was
>     set.

I'm not 100% sure what is the problem there, but beware that bitops
don't provide the same semantics as spinlocks regarding memory ordering.

Ben.


-
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/