linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] workqueue fixes for v4.6-rc5

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 27 Apr 2016 15:03:27 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roman Pen <roman.penyaev@...fitbricks.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] workqueue fixes for v4.6-rc5

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:49:35AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, we were missing a smp_rmb() after clearing PENDING for
> > execution, so nothing guaranteed visibility of the changes that a
> > queueing loser has made, which manifested as a reproducible blk-mq
> > stall.
> 
> That explanation makes no sense. A smp_rmb() after a store makes no
> sense what-so-ever.
> 
> Happily, the code itself does and has a big comment. It's not a
> "smp_rmb()", it's a full memory barrier. Which *does* make sense as
> serializing a store wrt a following load.

Heh, yeah, brainfart.  smp_mb(), obviously.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun