| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:42:48 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] percpu: add data dependency barrier in percpu accessors and operations > > I much prefer the model where the thing that -published- the pointer is > > responsible for memory ordering. After all, if a task allocates some > > zeroed memory, uses it locally, then frees it, there is no ordering > > to worry about in the first place. The memory allocator doing the > > initialization cannot tell how the memory is to be used, after all. > > Yeah, "publish" is a nice verb to put on it. No objection. Well that "publishing" of the structure that contains the per cpu offset is actually what most of the current code does. So we do not need any additional synchronization. Clarifying the responsibility for synchronization being with the code which does the alloc_percpu would be good. -- 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