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:   Fri, 19 May 2017 09:04:30 -0500 (CDT)
From:   Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Virtually Mapped Stacks: Do not disable interrupts

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> > The reason to disable interrupts seems to be to avoid switching
> > to a different processor while handling per cpu data using
> > individual loads and stores. If we use per cpu RMV primitives
> > we will not have to disable interrupts.
>
> I like this, except that those primitives can be quite expensive, I
> think, and they're being called in a loop.  What if you first did a
> this_cpu_read() to see if the value in the cache slot might be useful
> before doing the heavyweight exchange?

These operations are not expensive because they are unlocked operations
(in constrast to the usuual "lock cmpxchg") and do not
require coherency to be guaranteed between processors. That is why they
were made available because they are so much cheaper.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ