linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cgroup: pids: use {READ,WRITE}

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:54:07 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Cc:     Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: pids: use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE for pids->limit
 operations

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 02:35:20AM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > Sure, I will switch it to use atomic64_read() and atomic64_set() instead
> > if that's what you'd prefer. Though I will mention that on quite a few
> > architectures atomic64_read() is defined as:
> > 
> >   #define atomic64_read(v)        READ_ONCE((v)->counter)
> 
> Though I guess that's because on those architectures it turns out that
> READ_ONCE is properly atomic?

Oh yeah, on archs where 64bit accesses are atomic, READ_ONCE() /
WRITE_ONCE() would work here.  If the limit variable were ulong
instead of an explicit 64bit variable, RW ONCE would work too as ulong
accesses are atomic on all archs IIRC.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun