linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 10/25] openrisc: add spinlock implementation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:08:49 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
Cc:     Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
        Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
        linux@...ck-us.net, openrisc@...ts.librecores.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/25] openrisc: add spinlock implementation

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:41:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:11:39AM +0900, Stafford Horne wrote:
> > +static inline void arch_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> > +{
> > +	smp_mb();
> > +	lock->tickets.owner++;
> > +}
> 
> This is putting a lot of trust in the compiler, nothing is volatile so
> it can do horrible things.

Also, your architecture manual seems to not explicitly mention how
l.lwa/l.swa interact with overlapping l.sh.

In fact, I can read the text such that its done 'wrong'.