linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/25] xen: Core Xen implementation

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: <C257655B.66F1%Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date:	Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:31:23 +0100
From:	Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@...cam.ac.uk>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
CC:	Ian Pratt <ian.pratt@...source.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/25] xen: Core Xen implementation

On 27/4/07 08:08, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:

>> Don't you need a rmb() here then? The CPU could speculate reads
>> (more occurrences)
>>   
> 
> Is rmb() sufficient?  It will stop a speculative read on the pending
> flag, but will it make sure the write has happened by then?  Ie, is it a
> write-vs-read barrier, or just a read-vs-read?
> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt suggests not.

The barrier() is sufficient. We are racing against Xen checking
evtchn_upcall_mask *on the local cpu*. Which means an interrupt has to
occur, which squashes speculative stuff.

Yeah, I know, it needs a better comment. :-)

 -- Keir


-
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/