[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190530120531.GE22536@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 14:05:31 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: restore smp_rmb() in __ptrace_may_access()
On 05/29, Jann Horn wrote:
>
> > (I am wondering if smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() could be used instead, just to
> > make this code look more confusing)
>
> Uuh, I had no idea that that barrier type exists. The helper isn't
> even explicitly mentioned in Documentation/memory-barriers.rst. I
> don't really want to use dark magic in the middle of ptrace access
> logic...
Yes. and if it was not clear I didn't try to seriously suggest to use this
barrier. I was just curious if it can be used or not in this particular case.
> Anyway, looking at it, I think smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() doesn't
> make sense here;
Well I still _think_ it should work, it provides the LOAD-LOAD ordering
and this is what we need.
But I can be easily wrong, and again, I wasn't serious.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists