linux-kernel - What protects cpu

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4615518A.4070003@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:44:10 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: What protects cpu_tlbstate?

Hi,

What protects the cpu_tlbstate?  I see in i386/kernel/smp.c that its
always used in a non-preemptable area, but what prevents races with
interrupts?  For example, what prevents leave_mm() called via the
flush_tlb_all IPI from racing with, say, enter_lazy_tlb?  Couldn't a
race leave cpu_tlbstate in an inconsistent state?

Or does it simply not matter?  But if that were true, it seems to me
that there should be at least some barriers or something to make sure
the final state is consistent.

Thanks,
    J
-
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/