linux-kernel - Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710181817380.4194@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> Ah, thanks, but can we just use my earlier patch that does the
> proper __bit_spin_unlock which is provided by
> bit_spin_lock-use-lock-bitops.patch

Ok.

> This primitive should have a better chance at being correct, and
> also potentially be more optimised for each architecture (it
> only has to provide release consistency).

Yes that is what I attempted to do with the write barrier. To my knowledge 
there are no reads that could bleed out and I wanted to avoid a full fence 
instruction there.

> I have attached the patch here just for reference, but actually
> I am submitting it properly as part of a patch series today, now
> that the base bit lock patches have been sent upstream.

Good. Andrew: Drop my patch when this goes in.
-
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/