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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 10:26:54 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com> Cc: Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>, "linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>, "cmetcalf@...hip.com" <cmetcalf@...hip.com>, "gilf@...hip.com" <gilf@...hip.com>, "talz@...hip.com" <talz@...hip.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 19/20] ARC: [plat-eznps] replace sync with proper cpu barrier On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:48:54AM +0000, Vineet Gupta wrote: > Since u bring this up - I think we don't need the original SYNC and/or > SMT thread schedule at all. The SYNC here is a historic relic at best > and we can get rid of it per reasoning below: > > In UP context it is obviously useless, why would we want to stall the > core for all updates to stack memory of t0 to complete before loading > kernel ode callee registers from t1 stack's memory. > > In SMP, we could have a potential race in which outdoing task could be > concurrently picked for running, thus the writes to stack here need to > be visible before the reads from stack on other core. But I think > since this is the same rq, there would be a taken spinlock and once a > core gives it up, an smp barrier would come naturally. > > Peter do u concur ? I'm still somewhat jet-lagged, but I think the below reference should answer your question: lkml.kernel.org/r/20150917130125.GL3816@...ns.programming.kicks-ass.net I (still) need to update that patch and send it out again. But I think it answers your question; we do not rely on arch code to provide barriers for the generic code. Now, if for some reason the arch code has further constraints, then maybe, but I don't think so. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists