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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20160524165741.GB15189@worktop.bitpit.net> Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 18:57:41 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, hofrat@...dl.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] locking: Annotate spin_unlock_wait() users On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 09:17:13AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > This needs to be either hidden inside the basic spinlock functions, > _or_ it needs to be a clear and unambiguous interface. Anything that > starts talking about control dependencies is not it. > > Note that this really is about naming and use, not about > implementation. So something like "spin_sync_after_unlock_wait()" is > acceptable, even if the actual _implementation_ were to be exactly the > same as the "after_ctrl_dep()" crap. OK; so I would prefer to keep the smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() crap for common use in smp_cond_acquire() and such, but I'd be more than happy to just stuff it unconditionally into spin_unlock_wait(). Most users really need it, and its restores intuitive semantics to the primitive. I'm assuming the explicit use then left in ipc/sem.c (as paired with the spin_is_locked) is fine with you; that's certainly not driver code. Todays series was really more about auditing all the spin_unlock_wait() usage sites.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists