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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190326050320.gwk3tgtqwl5csivt@gondor.apana.org.au> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:03:20 +0800 From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com> Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] rhashtable: use bit_spin_locks to protect hash bucket. On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 04:05:39PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > + * Sometimes we unlock a bucket by writing a new pointer there. In that > + * case we don't need to unlock, but we do need to reset state such as > + * local_bh. For that we have rht_unlocked(). This doesn't include > + * the memory barrier that bit_spin_unlock() provides, but rcu_assign_pointer() > + * will have provided that. Hmm, are you sure that's enough? IIRC rcu_assign_pointer only provides a write barrier compared to the more complete (but one-way) barrier that a spin-lock provides. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists