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, 3 May 2019 18:34:11 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: f68f031d ("Documentation: atomic_t.txt: Explain ordering
 provided by smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()")

On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 12:19:21PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 07:53:26AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Hello, Alan,
> > > 
> > > Just following up on the -rcu commit below.  I believe that it needs
> > > some adjustment given Peter Zijlstra's addition of "memory" to the x86
> > > non-value-returning atomics, but thought I should double-check.
> > 
> > Right; I should get back to that thread...
> 
> The real question, still outstanding, is whether smp_mb__before_atomic 
> orders anything following the RMW instruction (and similarly, whether 
> smp_mb__after_atomic orders anything preceding the RMW instruction).

Yes -- that was very much the intent, and only (some) x86 ops and (some)
MIPS config have issues with that.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists