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
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:50:18 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Matteo Franchin <Matteo.Franchin@....com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: Ensure get_futex_key_refs() always implies a barrier

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:
>
> And [get/put]_futex_keys() shouldn't even be called for private futexes.
> The following patch had some very minor testing on a 60 core box last
> night, but passes both Darren's and perf's tests. So I *think* this is
> right, but lack of sleep and I overall just don't trust them futexes!

Hmm. I don't see the advantage of making the code more complex in
order to avoid the functions that are no-ops for the !fshared case?

IOW, as far as I can tell, this patch doesn't actually really *change*
anything. Am I missing something?

         Linus
--
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