| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0810151127230.3288@nehalem.linux-foundation.org> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:29:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [rfc] SLOB memory ordering issue On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > > When I said "I'd really hate to add a branch to the slab fastpath", it > wasn't a tacit acknowlegement that the barrier is the only way to go, > if it sounded that way. > > I meant: I'd *really* hate to add a branch to the slab fastpath :) Well, quite frankly, your choice of subject line and whole point of argument may have confused me. You started out - and continue to - make this sound like it's a SLAB/SLOB/SLUB issue. It's not. I agree there is quite likely memory ordering issues - possibly old ones, but quite possibly also ones that have just happened fairly recently as we've done more unlocked lookups - and all I've ever disagreed with is how you seem to have mixed this up with the allocator. And I still don't understand why you even _mention_ the slab fastpath. It seems totally immaterial. Linus -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists