linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] powerpc: atomic: Implement cmpxchg{,64}_* and atomic{,64}_cmpxchg

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: <20151014014735.GF23991@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:47:35 +0800
From:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] powerpc: atomic: Implement cmpxchg{,64}_* and
 atomic{,64}_cmpxchg_* variants

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 04:04:27PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:58:30PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 03:43:33PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Putting a barrier in the middle of that critical section is probably a
> > > terrible idea, and that's why I thought you were avoiding it (hence my
> > 
> > The fact is that I haven't thought of that way to implement
> > cmpxchg_release before you ask that question ;-) And I'm not going to do
> > that for now and probably not in the future.
> > 
> > > original question). Perhaps just add a comment to that effect, since I
> > 
> > Are you suggesting if I put a barrier in the middle I'd better to add a
> > comment, right? So if I don't do that, it's OK to let this patch as it.
> 
> No, I mean put a comment in your file to explain the reason why you
> override _relaxed and _acquire, but not _release (because overriding

You mean overriding _acquire and fully order version, right?

> _release would introduce this weird barrier in the middle of the critical
> section, which would likely cause the conditional store to fail).
> 
> Will

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)