linux-kernel - Re: Reasoning about memory ordering

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: <20180223153807.64666cfe@alans-desktop>
Date:   Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:38:07 +0000
From:   Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:     Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, parri.andrea@...il.com
Subject: Re: Reasoning about memory ordering

> Given this is the current state of the code (it's part of btrfs) I believe
> the following could/should be done: 

Is there benchmarking data to show that a custom lock is justified
(especiaally given it's going to mean btrfs and rtlinux don't play
together nicely since it won't be able to see the mutex lock and do
priority boosting ?)

Alan