linux-kernel - Re: [interesting] smattering of possible memory ordering bugs

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: <1193373147.7018.70.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:32:27 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	paulus@...ba.org, shaggy@...tin.ibm.com, adaplas@...il.com,
	"Morton, Andrew" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	xfs-masters@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [interesting] smattering of possible memory ordering bugs


On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 13:47 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:

> I don't think the previous code was wrong... it's not a locked section
> > and we don't care about ordering previous stores. It's an
> allocation, it
> > should be fine. In general, bitmap allocators should be allright.
> 
> Well if it is just allocating an arbitrary _number_ out of a bitmap
> and nothing else (eg. like the pid allocator), then you don't need
> barriers.

Yup, that's what it does.

Cheers,
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/