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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 09:21:51 +0200 From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com> To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, 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 LKMM 1/7] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 03:09:49PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Andrea Parri wrote: > > Heh, your confusion might be the reflection of mine... ;-) That was > > indeed a long and not conclusive discussion (meaning there're pending > > issues); and I cannot claim to find "arguments" such as: > > > > "More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that > > the LKMM should enforce ordering of writes by locking." > > > > particularly helpful (I do tend to be convinced by arguments rather > > than by opinions). In fact, you can take the following as my only > > current "constructive argument" against the patch [1,2]: > > > > THE COMMIT MESSAGE IS RIDICULOUS; PLEASE EXPAND ON IT, AND DO > > SO BY LEVERAGING BOTH PROS AND CONS OF THE APPLIED CHANGES > > Do you have any concrete suggestions (i.e., some actual text) for > improvements to the patch description? Earlier in your message you > mentioned that Will's comment: > > LKMM offers stronger guarantees that can portably be relied upon > in the codebase. > > would make a good addition. Suitably edited, it could be added to the > description. I can think of a few other things myself, but I'd like to > hear your thoughts. Anything else? Yes: I do sometimes have the impression that your "rules" for trimming text in emails/replies are too aggressive... Andrea > > Alan >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists