linux-kernel - Re: BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#0, migration/0/9

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:	Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:39:05 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, waiman.long@...com,
	peterz@...radead.org, raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#0, migration/0/9

On 02/12, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > --- x/kernel/sched/completion.c
> > +++ x/kernel/sched/completion.c
> > @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ bool try_wait_for_completion(struct comp
> >  	 * first without taking the lock so we can
> >  	 * return early in the blocking case.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (!ACCESS_ONCE(x->done))
> > +	if (!READ_ONCE(x->done))
> >  		return 0;
> >
> from looking at compiler.h I don't think that there would be a difference
> between ACCESS_ONCE() and READ_ONCE() in this case

Yes, this is unrelated "while at it" cosmetic change, now that we have
READ_ONCE() it makes more sense in this case.

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/