linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] kref: Remove the memory barriers

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:	Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:12:20 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
Cc:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
	gregkh@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ostrikov@...dia.com,
	adobriyan@...il.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] kref: Remove the memory barriers

On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 23:56 +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> I guess I worried not about the increment, but the decrement.
> Which makes me wonder what happens if you don't intend
> to get the kref again, but need to make sure it is usually freed,
> like:
> 
> CPU A                                                           CPU B
> 
> kref_get(p)
> start_io(p)
>                                                                         [interrupt from IO]
>                                                                         kref_put(p)

I would expect that if something was needed here, the io stack would
provide the barriers since the io completion will probably want to
change state set by the start_io thing.

Anyway, I would put this squarely outside the responsibility of kref.
--
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/