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  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:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:03:20 +0800
From:   Herbert Xu <>
To:     NeilBrown <>
Cc:     Thomas Graf <>,,,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] rhashtable: use bit_spin_locks to protect hash

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.

Email: Herbert Xu <>
Home Page:
PGP Key:

Powered by blists - more mailing lists