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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:43:35 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org> cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> Subject: Re: Memory allocator semantics On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Pekka Enberg wrote: > So again, there's nothing in (A) that the memory allocator is > concerned about. kmalloc() makes no guarantees whatsoever about the > visibility of "r1" across CPUs. If you're saying that there's an > implicit barrier between kmalloc() and kfree(), that's an unintended > side-effect, not a design decision AFAICT. I am not sure that this side effect necessarily happens. The SLUB fastpath does not disable interrupts and only uses a cmpxchg without lock semantics. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists