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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:44:41 -0400
From:	Pranith Kumar <>
To:	Christoph Lameter <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] doc: Add remote CPU access details and others
 to this_cpu_ops.txt

On 07/17/2014 11:19 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Regarding atomic_t in per cpu areas: I am uncomfortable especially
> because both locked and unlocked RMW write operations could be acting on
> values in the same cacheline. I am concerned that the unlocked operation
> could have an unpredictable result.
> f.e. the following per cpu data structure
> struct test {
> 	atomic_t a;
> 	int b;
> } onecacheline;
> Local cpu does
> 	this_cpu_inc(onecacheline.b);
> If this is racing with a remote cpus:
> 	atomic_inc(percpu(&a, cpu))
> then we have on x86 a increment operation with locked semantics racing
> with an unlocked one on the same cacheline.

OK, I will add this as a warning in the documentation. Thanks!

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists