linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] early_printk: Add simple serialization to early

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, 4 Oct 2017 15:08:49 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     pmladek@...e.com, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] early_printk: Add simple serialization to
 early_vprintk()

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:04:01AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > > If old != -1 and old != cpu, is it possible that the CPU could have
> > > fetched an old value, and never try to fetch it again?  
> > 
> > What? If old != -1 and old != cpu, we'll hit the cpu_relax() and do the
> > READ_ONCE() again. The READ_ONCE() guarantees we'll do the load again,
> > as does the barrier() implied by cpu_relax().
> 
> I'm more worried about other architectures that don't have as strong of
> a cache coherency.

Linux mandates cache-coherency, there's no weak or strong there. Memory
ordering can be weak or strong, but coherency not.

If this patch is broken, lots of code would be broken.