linux-kernel - Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification

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: <20150831183335.GA26333@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 31 Aug 2015 20:33:35 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification

On 08/31, Boqun Feng wrote:
>
> Fair enough, I went too far. How about just a single paragraph saying
> that:
>
> The wake_up(), wait_event() and their friends have proper barriers in
> them, but these implicity barriers are only for the correctness for
> sleep and wakeup. So don't rely on these barriers for things that are
> neither wait-conditons nor task states.
>
> Is that OK to you?

Ask Paul ;) but personally I agree.

To me, the only thing a user should know about wake_up/try_to_wake_up
and barriers is that you do not need another barrier between setting
condition and waking up.

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/