linux-kernel - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH] rdma/siw: avoid smp_store

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]

Message-Id: <OFEB707FCB.5B44FFBA-ON00258435.00637608-00258435.00637611@notes.na.collabserv.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:06:22 +0000
From:   "Bernard Metzler" <BMT@...ich.ibm.com>
To:     "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Doug Ledford" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re:  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH] rdma/siw: avoid smp_store_mb() on a u64

-----"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote: -----

>To: "Bernard Metzler" <BMT@...ich.ibm.com>
>From: "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>
>Date: 07/12/2019 07:45PM
>Cc: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>, "Doug Ledford"
><dledford@...hat.com>, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
>linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH] rdma/siw: avoid
>smp_store_mb() on a u64
>
>On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 05:40:43PM +0000, Bernard Metzler wrote:
> 
>> It is because there are two levels a CQ can be armed:
>> 
>>        #include <infiniband/verbs.h>
>> 
>>        int ibv_req_notify_cq(struct ibv_cq *cq, int
>solicited_only);
>> 
>> If we kick the CQ handler, we have to clear the whole
>> thing. The user later again decides how he wants to get it
>> re-armed...SOLICITED completions only, or ALL signaled.
>
>Arrange it so only one of the two bits is ever set and do two
>test-and-set bits when a SOLICITED CQE comes in?
>
right, but that's too easy ;)
I'll probably do it along those lines.



Many thanks,
Bernard.