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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:33:59 -0800
From:   Lance Roy <>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SRCU: More efficient reader counts.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:35:08 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:17:25PM -0800, Lance Roy wrote:
> > SRCU uses two per-cpu counters: a nesting counter to count the number of
> > active critical sections, and a sequence counter to ensure that the nesting
> > counters don't change while they are being added together in
> > srcu_readers_active_idx_check().
> > 
> > This patch instead uses per-cpu lock and unlock counters. Because the both
> > counters only increase and srcu_readers_active_idx_check() reads the unlock
> > counter before the lock counter, this achieves the same end without having
> > to increment two different counters in srcu_read_lock(). This also saves a
> > smp_mb() in srcu_readers_active_idx_check().
> > 
> > Possible bug: There is no guarantee that the lock counter won't overflow
> > during srcu_readers_active_idx_check(), as there are no memory barriers
> > around srcu_flip() (see comment in srcu_readers_active_idx_check() for
> > details). However, this problem was already present before this patch.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <>
> > Signed-off-by: Lance Roy <>  
> In general, the comment update looks good, but this patch undoes my
> application of review feedback to your original patch.  Could you please
> submit the comment update as a separate patch on top of branch rcu/next
> of my -rcu tree?
> git://
I have added the review feedback to the new patch. I will send the new version.
If you prefer that the comment changes are in a separate patch I can change it,
but I thought it would be better not to have an incorrect statement in the
commit message.

> Of course, if any of the changes from the review feedback are in any
> way problematic, please do let me know.
I don't see any problems.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists