linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 14/15] futex: convert futex_pi_state.refcount to refcount

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

Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B6FF63506@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:24:16 +0000
From:   "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "lizefan@...wei.com" <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
        "alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com" 
        <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        "eparis@...hat.com" <eparis@...hat.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "dvhart@...radead.org" <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        "ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 14/15] futex: convert futex_pi_state.refcount to
 refcount_t


> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:05:33AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > Actually on the second thought: does the above memory ordering differences
> > really apply when  we have ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT? To me it looks like the way
> > how it is currently implemented for x86 is the same way as it is for atomic cases.
> 
> Never look to x86 for memory ordering, its boring.
> 
> And yes, for the ARM implementation it can certainly make a difference.

So, yes, what I am trying to say is that it can really depend if you have ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT
enabled or not and then also based on architecture. Thus I believe is also true for atomic: there
might be differences when you use arch. dependent version of function or not. 

So, I guess if I rewrite the commits, I should only include the statement on relaxed memory order
for REFCOUNT_FULL and tell that arch. specific implementations may vary on their properties
(as they do now).