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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 29 Jun 2019 17:12:36 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <>
To:     Steven Rostedt <>
Cc:     Byungchul Park <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Scott Wood <>,
        Joel Fernandes <>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>,
        rcu <>, LKML <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Josh Triplett <>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <>,
        Lai Jiangshan <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs

Hi Steve,

> As Paul stated, interrupts are synchronization points. Archs can only
> play games with ordering when dealing with entities outside the CPU
> (devices and other CPUs). But if you have assembly that has two stores,
> and an interrupt comes in, the arch must guarantee that the stores are
> done in that order as the interrupt sees it.

Hopefully I'm not derailing the conversation too much with my questions
... but I was wondering if we had any documentation (or inline comments)
elaborating on this "interrupts are synchronization points"?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists