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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 20:21:32 +0200 From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com> To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>, Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs > Remark: we do have code which (while acknowledging that "interrupts are > synchronization points") doesn't quite seem to "believe it", c.f., e.g., > kernel/sched/membarrier.c:ipi_mb(). So, I guess the follow-up question > would be "Would we better be (more) paranoid? ..." should have been "IPIs are serializing" (so all a different "order"...) Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists