linux-kernel - Re: sync_set_bit() vs set_bit() -- what's the difference?

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: <53FDA71B020000780002DF2E@mail.emea.novell.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:38:35 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"Dexuan Cui" <decui@...rosoft.com>
Cc:	"jeremy@...p.org" <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"KY Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
	"chrisw@...s-sol.org" <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sync_set_bit() vs set_bit()  -- what's the difference?

>>> On 27.08.14 at 09:30, <decui@...rosoft.com> wrote:
> I'm curious about the difference. :-)
> 
> sync_set_bit() is only used in drivers/hv/ and drivers/xen/ while set_bit() 
> is used in all other places. What makes hv/xen special?

I guess this would really want to be used by anything communicating
with a hypervisor or a remote driver: set_bit() gets its LOCK prefix
discarded when the local kernel determines it runs on a single CPU
only. Obviously having knowledge of the CPU count inside a VM does
not imply anything about the number of CPUs available to the host,
i.e. stripping LOCK prefixes in that case would be unsafe.

Jan

--
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/