linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tools/memory-model] Add s390.{cfg,cat}

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]

Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:51:36 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        schwidefsky@...ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        parri.andrea@...il.com, will.deacon@....com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk,
        luc.maranget@...ia.fr, akiyks@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tools/memory-model] Add s390.{cfg,cat}

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:01:25AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> I don't quite see the point of this.  You're not suggesting that we
> have one Linux Kernel Memory Consistency Model for s390 and another
> one for all the other architectures, are you?
> 
> If the idea is merely to provide a herd model for s390 then it should 
> go into the DIY repository, not into the LKMM repository.

I suspect the use-case was validating s390 arch code which might not
have followed all the regular linux rules because they know its TSO. But
yes, I'm tempted to agree that even arch specific code ought to follow
the regular rules, just to avoid completely messing up the reader.