linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] fixes and breakup of memory-barrier-decrease patch

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110521142844.GA29813@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 21 May 2011 16:28:44 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, randy.dunlap@...cle.com,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] fixes and breakup of memory-barrier-decrease
 patch


* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hello, Ingo,
> 
> This pull requests covers some RCU bug fixes and one patch rework.
> 
> The first group breaks up the infamous now-reverted (but ultimately
> vindicated) "Decrease memory-barrier usage based on semi-formal proof"
> commit into five commits.  These five commits immediately follow the
> revert, and the diff across all six of these commits is empty, so that
> the effect of the five commits is to revert the revert.

But ... the regression that was observed with that commit needs to be fixed 
first, or not? In what way was the barrier commit vindicated?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/