linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH next v2 2/3] printk: change @clear_seq to atomic64

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: <20201209092204.GD1667627@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 18:22:04 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 2/3] printk: change @clear_seq to atomic64_t

On (20/12/09 09:16), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 11:36:44PM +0106, John Ogness wrote:
> > For the state variable we chose atomic_long_t instead of atomic64_t for
> > this reason. atomic_long_t operations are available atomically on all
> > architectures.
> 
> Please put on your eye cancer gear and inspect the atomic implementation
> of PA-RISC, Sparc32, feh, I forgot who else.
> 
> Those SMP capable architectures are gifted with just one XCHG like
> atomic instruction :/ Anyway, as said in the other email, they also
> don't have NMIs so it mostly works.

Hmm, wow. OK, I definitely want to look further.

When some CONFIG_DEBUG_FOO_BAR code wants to pr_err from prb->atomic_op
on those archs then we deadlock in printk once again?

	-ss