linux-kernel - RE: [RFC] WRITE_ONCE

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: <491f0b0bc9e4419d93a78974fd7f44c7@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Sun, 19 Apr 2020 18:02:50 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Petko Manolov' <petko.manolov@...sulko.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC] WRITE_ONCE_INC() and friends

From: Petko Manolov
> Sent: 19 April 2020 10:45
> Recently I started reading up on KCSAN and at some point I ran into stuff like:
> 
> WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx], ssp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx] + 1);
> WRITE_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq, READ_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq) + 1);

If all the accesses use READ/WRITE_ONCE() why not just mark the
structure field 'volatile'?

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)