linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] locking: rwbase: Take care of ordering guarantee for fastpath reader

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]

Message-ID: <YTNIL81163O/3gea@boqun-archlinux>
Date:   Sat, 4 Sep 2021 18:19:27 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] locking: rwbase: Take care of ordering guarantee for
 fastpath reader

On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 12:14:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 10:50:58PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > 	 * ordering, either is strong enough to provide ACQUIRE order
> > > 	 * for the above load of @readers.
> > > 	 */
> > > 	rwbase_set_and_save_current_state(state);
> > > 	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
> > > 
> > > 	while (readers) {
> > > 		...
> > > 		readers = atomic_read(&rwb->readers);
> > 
> > The above should be _acquire(), right? Pairs with the last reader
> > exiting the critical section and dec ->readers to 0. If so, it
> > undermines the necessity of the restructure?
> 
> This is the one that's followed by set_current_state(), no?

You're right. I was missing that ;-/

Regards,
Boqun

>