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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:16:00 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Alan Stern <>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <>
cc:     Daniel Jordan <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        Steven Sistare <>,
        Pasha Tatashin <>
Subject: Re: Control dependency between prior load in while condition and
 later store?

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 10:35:22AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > In this example, READ_ONCE() is in fact a volatile access, so we're 
> > okay.
> But our documentation clearly states a control-dep can only be from a
> READ_ONCE() (or something stronger), right? So we should be good
> irrespectively.

Agreed.  My point was that these are delicate issues.  (And they will 
become more relevant when we want to expand the Linux Kernel Memory 
Consistency Model to cover ordinary accesses and data races.)


Powered by blists - more mailing lists