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: <CAHk-=wgQyXOt_HjDZHNqWMmyvv74xLAcMw88grfp4HkKoS2vLw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:44:11 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, 
	Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, lkmm@...ts.linux.dev, 
	"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 (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>, rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	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>, 
	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

On Thu, 26 Sept 2024 at 18:38, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Note that ADDRESS_EQ() only hide first parameter, so this should be ADDRESS_EQ(b, a).

Yeah, please stop making things unnecessarily complicated.

Just use a barrier(). Please. Stop these stupid games until you can
show why it matters.

And by "why it matters" I mean "major difference in code generation",
not some "it uses one more register and has to spill" kind of small
detail.

At this point, I'm not even convinced the whole hazard pointer
approach makes sense. And you're not helping by making it more
complicated than it needs to be.

          Linus