linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46156366.70206@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:00:22 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
CC:	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: What protects cpu_tlbstate?

Andi Kleen wrote:
> The interrupts can only happen when the other CPU is already lazy
> and enter_lazy_tlb would be a nop then.  The flushers itself are
> synchronized by the page_table_lock or the mm semaphore.
>
> Against switch_mm it tries to protect with ordering.
>
> wmb()s are not needed on x86 (ok minus errata on ppro and
> VIA magic mode but which is UP only). That would leave some rmb()s,
> but I don't see any place they would be needed. 
>   

Hm, I was more wondering about simple compiler reordering.  Does the
relative order of setting and reading cpu_tlbstate.state, active_mm and
the mm->cpu_vm_mask matter?

    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/