linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched: membarrier: cover kthread_use

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:   Thu, 6 Aug 2020 14:48:42 +0200
From:   peterz@...radead.org
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched: membarrier: cover kthread_use_mm

On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 01:13:46PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> I'm not sure I really see the benefit of the rename, to be honest with you,
> especially if smp_mb__after_spinlock() doesn't disappear at the same time.

The reason I proposed a rename is because:

	mutex_lock(&foo);
	smp_mb__after_spinlock();

looks weird. But, afaict, it will work as expected. As the only possible
way to implement any lock() is with atomic*_acquire() or stronger.

Another possible name would be: smp_mb__after_lock().