linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/3] documentation: Add needed ACCESS

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: <20131121194334.GC14144@jtriplet-mobl1>
Date:	Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:43:35 -0800
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com, sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/3] documentation: Add needed
 ACCESS_ONCE() calls to memory-barriers.txt

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 09:48:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> The Documentation/memory-barriers.txt file was written before the need
> for ACCESS_ONCE() was fully appreciated.  It therefore contains no
> ACCESS_ONCE() calls, which can be a problem when people lift examples
> from it.  This commit therefore adds ACCESS_ONCE() calls.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 204 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 124 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> index c8c42e64e953..eccc83a40ce1 100644
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -194,18 +194,20 @@ There are some minimal guarantees that may be expected of a CPU:
>   (*) On any given CPU, dependent memory accesses will be issued in order, with
>       respect to itself.  This means that for:
>  
> -	Q = P; D = *Q;
> +	ACCESS_ONCE(Q) = P; smp_memory_barrier_depends(); D = ACCESS_ONCE(*Q);

That should be smp_read_barrier_depends().

Also, most of the time shouldn't that use rcu_dereference rather than a
raw smp_read_barrier_depends()?

- Josh Triplett
--
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/