linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] hazptr: Add initial implementation of hazard pointers

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: <f5aeeeda-c725-422a-9481-4795bd3ade0f@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 12:11:52 +0200
From: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 lkmm@...r.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
 Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>,
 Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
 Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, maged.michael@...il.com,
 Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] hazptr: Add initial implementation of hazard
 pointers

Am 9/25/2024 um 12:02 PM schrieb Boqun Feng:
> Hi Jonas,
>
> Of
> course, if we are really worried about compilers being too "smart"

Ah, I see you know me better and better...

> we can always do the comparison in asm code, then compilers don't know
> anything of the equality between 'ptr' and 'head - head_offset'.
Yes, but then a simple compiler barrier between the comparison and 
returning ptr would also do the trick, right? And maybe easier on the eyes.

Have fun,
    jonas