linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] riscv/spinlock: Strengthen implementations with fences

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]

Message-ID: <mhng-e33a5770-5cf5-407d-b2f6-45af7c0b9ef8@palmer-si-x1c4>
Date:   Fri, 09 Mar 2018 10:07:19 -0800 (PST)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
To:     parri.andrea@...il.com
CC:     albert@...ive.com, Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        stern@...land.harvard.edu, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com,
        dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr,
        paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akiyks@...il.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject:     Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] riscv/spinlock: Strengthen implementations with fences

On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 04:16:43 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@...il.com wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:11:12PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 13:03:03 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@...il.com wrote:
>> >On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:33:49AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >>I'm going to go produce a new set of spinlocks, I think it'll be a bit more
>> >>coherent then.
>> >>
>> >>I'm keeping your other patch in my queue for now, it generally looks good
>> >>but I haven't looked closely yet.
>> >
>> >Patches 1 and 2 address a same issue ("release-to-acquire"); this is also
>> >expressed, more or less explicitly, in the corresponding commit messages:
>> >it might make sense to "queue" them together, and to build the new locks
>> >on top of these (even if this meant "rewrite all of/a large portion of
>> >spinlock.h"...).
>>
>> I agree.  IIRC you had a fixup to the first pair of patches, can you submit
>> a v2?
>
> I've just sent it (with updated changelog).

Thanks!