linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix rhashtable bit-locking for m68k

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:   Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:08:41 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix rhashtable bit-locking for m68k

On 4/11/19 6:52 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> As reported by Guenter Roeck, the new rhashtable bit-locking
> doesn't work on m68k as it only requires 2-byte alignment, so BIT(1)
> is addresses is not unused.
> 
> We current use BIT(0) to identify a NULLS marker, but that is only
> needed in ->next pointers.  The bucket head does not need a NULLS
> marker, so the lsb there can be used for locking.
> 
> the first 4 patches make some small improvements and re-arrange some
> code.  The final patch converts to using only BIT(0) for these two
> different special purposes.
> 
> I had previously suggested dropping the series until I fix it.  Given
> that this was fairly easy, I retract that I think it best simply to
> add these patches to fix the code.
> 
For the series:

Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>

Tested with the series applied on top of next-20190412, running all
345 qemu tests. No boot failures or new warnings observed.

Guenter