linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] Gaurantee spinlocks implicit barrier for !PREEMPT

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: <1365429922.2733.4.camel@fedora>
Date:	Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:05:22 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christian Ruppert <christian.ruppert@...lis.com>,
	Pierrick Hascoet <pierrick.hascoet@...lis.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] Gaurantee spinlocks implicit barrier for
 !PREEMPT_COUNT

On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 21:48 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Ingo? Peter? I'm not sure anybody really uses UP+no-preempt on x86,
> but it does seem to be a bug.. Comments?

I believe a lot of people still use no-preempt. Well, at least voluntary
preemption, which would have the same bug.

I'm thinking that we may have just been lucky that gcc didn't move the
get_user() into a place that would cause issues.

Sounds like a bug to me.

-- 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/