linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ring-buffer: add design document

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:	Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:58:01 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ring-buffer: add design document


On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Huang Ying wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 03:53 +0800, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > +
> > +cmpxchg - hardware assisted atomic transaction that performs the following:
> > +
> > +   A = B iff previous A == C
> > +
> > +   R = cmpxchg(A, C, B) is saying that we replace A with B if and only if
> > +      current A is equal to C, and we put the old (current) A into R
> > +
> > +   R gets the previous A regardless if A is updated with B or not.
> > +
> > +   To see if the update was successful a compare of R == C may be used.
> 
> As far as I know, some architectures have no hardware assisted (NMI
> safe) cmpxchg. Is it OK to use cmpxchg in architecture-independent code?

I can fall back to the lock solution for those archs without cmpxchg. It 
is NMI safe, because we do spin_trylock() in NMI context. If we fail to 
acquire the lock in NMI context, we simply drop the packet.

Are these archs without cmpxchg and NMIs, a concern for you?

-- Steve

--
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/