linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/pvqspinlock: Optionally store lock holder cpu into lock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:21:35 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/pvqspinlock: Optionally store lock holder
 cpu into lock

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 07:05:36PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 7/12/20 1:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > And this kills it,.. if it doesn't make unconditional sense, we're not
> > going to do this. It's just too ugly.
> > 
> You mean it has to be unconditional, no option config if we want to do it.
> Right?

Yeah, the very last thing we need in this code is spurious complexity.