linux-kernel - Re: call_function_many: fix list delete vs add race

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: <1296540961.2349.336.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:16:01 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com, mingo@...e.hu, jaxboe@...ionio.com,
	npiggin@...il.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: call_function_many: fix list delete vs add race

On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 12:43 +1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt specifies this.
> 
> Good, so it really is documented, with both cases explicitly mentioned.
> 
> That said, I do think that if your memory ordering is much weaker than
> x86, you are going to see bugs that most testers don't see, and it
> simply might not be worth it.

Allright. The way we do it on power is stores won't pass the unlock
either way (lwsync). Some loads might migrate up tho.

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/