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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2017 19:51:36 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
        will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to
 sync_exp_work_done()

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:39:51AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> Well, if there are no objections, I will fix up the smp_mb__before_atomic()
> and smp_mb__after_atomic() pieces.

Feel free.

> I suppose that one alternative is the new variant of kerneldoc, though
> very few of these functions have comment headers, let alone kerneldoc
> headers.  Which reminds me, the question of spin_unlock_wait() and
> spin_is_locked() semantics came up a bit ago.  Here is what I believe
> to be the case.  Does this match others' expectations?
> 
> o	spin_unlock_wait() semantics:
> 
> 	1.	Any access in any critical section prior to the
> 		spin_unlock_wait() is visible to all code following
> 		(in program order) the spin_unlock_wait().
> 
> 	2.	Any access prior (in program order) to the
> 		spin_unlock_wait() is visible to any critical
> 		section following the spin_unlock_wait().
> 
> o	spin_is_locked() semantics: Half of spin_unlock_wait(),
> 	but only if it returns false:
> 
> 	1.	Any access in any critical section prior to the
> 		spin_unlock_wait() is visible to all code following
> 		(in program order) the spin_unlock_wait().

Urgh.. yes those are pain. The best advise is to not use them.

  055ce0fd1b86 ("locking/qspinlock: Add comments")


Powered by blists - more mailing lists