linux-kernel - Re: [patches] Re: [GIT PULL] RISC-V Cleanups and ABI Fixes for 4.15-rc2

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: <mhng-e4f55571-c4df-465d-b296-e9f3554a6292@palmer-si-x1c4>
Date:   Thu, 07 Dec 2017 12:59:35 -0800 (PST)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
To:     parri.andrea@...il.com
CC:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ups.riscv.org,
        stern@...land.harvard.edu, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject:     Re: [patches] Re: [GIT PULL] RISC-V Cleanups and ABI Fixes for 4.15-rc2

On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 19:20:02 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@...il.com wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:39:12PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>       RISC-V: Remove smb_mb__{before,after}_spinlock()
>
> I wonder whether you really meant to remove smp_mb__after_spinlock():
> on the one hand, this primitive doesn't seem "obsolete" (as suggested
> by the commit message); on the other hand, the Draft Specification at
>
>   https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151218405830993&w=2
>
> suggests that you need "to strengthen" the generic implementation for
> this primitive (considered the current spinlock.h in riscv).  What am
> I missing?

The comment was incorrect, which caused me to incorrectly remove the fence from 
our port.  I just sent out a patch (well, actually, I did last night -- I just 
found this email sitting in a buffer...).

  https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/6/1136

Thanks for catching this!