linux-kernel - Re: Behaviour of smp_mb__{before,after}

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:	Tue, 13 Jan 2015 19:45:10 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Behaviour of smp_mb__{before,after}_spin* and acquire/release

On 01/13, Will Deacon wrote:
>
>   1. Does smp_mb__before_spinlock actually have to order prior loads
>      against later loads and stores? Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>      says it does, but that doesn't match the comment

The comment says that smp_mb__before_spinlock() + spin_lock() should
only serialize STOREs with LOADs. This is because it was added to ensure
that the setting of condition can't race with ->state check in ttwu().

But since we use wmb() it obviously serializes STOREs with STORES. I do
not know if this should be documented, but we already have another user
which seems to rely on this fact: set_tlb_flush_pending().

As for "prior loads", this doesn't look true...

Oleg.

--
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/