linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] kthread: add a missing memory barrier to kthread

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]

Date:	Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:50:56 +1100
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kthread: add a missing memory barrier to kthread_stop()

On Thursday 21 February 2008 08:36:30 Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> From: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
> Subject: kthread: add a missing memory barrier to kthread_stop()
>
> We must ensure that kthread_stop_info.k has been updated before
> kthread's wakeup. This is required to properly support
> the use of kthread_should_stop() in the main loop of kthread.
>
> wake_up_process() doesn't imply a full memory barrier,
> so we add an explicit one.

I always believed that wake_up_process() implies a write barrier.  It's pretty 
common to set something up then wake the intended recipient.

So I think this patch is overkill, but I'm happy to be corrected.

Thanks!
Rusty.
--
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/