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: <20190503163411.GH2606@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> 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