linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] percpu: fix generic definition of __this_cpu_add_and

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1202240942510.2621@router.home>
Date:	Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:43:15 -0600 (CST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Torsten Kaiser <just.for.lkml@...glemail.com>
cc:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: fix generic definition of
 __this_cpu_add_and_return()

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Torsten Kaiser wrote:

> >  #define __this_cpu_sub_return(pcp, val)        this_cpu_add_return(pcp, -(val))
>
> I think, the same fix should be applied to the lines following this patch:
> #define __this_cpu_sub_return(pcp, val) this_cpu_add_return(pcp, -(val))
> #define __this_cpu_inc_return(pcp)      this_cpu_add_return(pcp, 1)
> #define __this_cpu_dec_return(pcp)      this_cpu_add_return(pcp, -1)
>
> Shouldn't these other operations also only give the __ relaxed guarantees?
Yes indeed that should also be fixed.