linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] printk: Use ACCESS_ONCE() instead of a volatile type

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]

Date:	Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:57:49 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
Cc:	Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] printk: Use ACCESS_ONCE() instead of a volatile
 type

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:39:34 -0600
Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org> wrote:
 
> There is only one read of logbuf_cpu:
>         if (unlikely(logbuf_cpu == this_cpu)) {
> This is called only while local interrupts are disabled, so
> if this condition holds it cannot be due to an interrupt--it

Unless an NMI called printk.

> must be due to simple recursion into printk() while inside
> the spinlock-protected critical section.


> QED.  (Well, please correct me where I'm wrong...)
> 

Except for the NMI case, I believe you are correct with the rest of
your analysis.

-- Steve
--
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/