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:	Sun, 6 Apr 2008 23:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <>
cc:	Robin Holt <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [patch 02/10] emm: notifier logic

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> > > My mm_lock solution makes all rcu serialization an unnecessary
> > > overhead so you should remove it like I already did in #v11. If it
> > > wasn't the case, then mm_lock wouldn't be a definitive fix for the
> > > race.
> > 
> > There still could be junk in the cache of one cpu. If you just read the 
> > new pointer but use the earlier content pointed to then you have a 
> > problem.
> There can't be junk, spinlocks provides semantics of proper memory
> barriers, just like rcu, so it's entirely superflous.
> There could be junk only if any of the mmu_notifier_* methods would be
> invoked _outside_ the i_mmap_lock and _outside_ the anon_vma and
> outside the mmap_sem, that is never the case of course.

So we use other locks to perform serialization on the list chains? 
Basically the list chains are protected by either mmap_sem or an rmap 
lock? We need to document that.

In that case we could also add an unregister function.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists