linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH printk v1 01/13] printk: rename cpulock functions

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]

Date:   Tue, 15 Feb 2022 10:32:20 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v1 01/13] printk: rename cpulock functions

On Fri 2022-02-11 22:04:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 03:57:27PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:48:08 +0106
> > John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > It is because (as in the example above), taking this "lock" does not
> > > provide synchronization to data. It is only synchronizing between
> > > CPUs. It was Steven's suggestion to call the thing a cpu_sync object and
> > > nobody in the RT Track seemed to disagree.
> > 
> > I love causing trouble ;-)
> > 
> > Actually, it wasn't just my suggestion. IIRC, I believe Peter Zijlstra was
> > against calling it a lock (Peter, you can use lore to see the context here).
> 
> All I remember is that it was in a room and I was late, I can't even
> remember what City we were all in at the time. Was this Lisbon?
> 
> Anyway, as Steve said, it isn't really a strict exclusion thing, it only
> avoids the most egregious inter-cpu interleaving. I'm down with
> goldi-locks, something has to have that name :-)

You troublemakers :-)

OK, I know, I am the troublemaker here.

Best Regards,
Petr