[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACQBu=WNdmxqOY6FYiKZm2kxACoKMnusngMexhW-=xHkGbzVLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 22:09:53 +0200
From: Burak Emir <bqe@...gle.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/5] rust: add bitmap API.
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:07 PM Burak Emir <bqe@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 9:01 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand what's going on here, unless you're saying that
> > Rust does not enforce that an object ownership transfer between
> > threads has proper RELEASE/ACQUIRE (or RELEASE/CONSUME) memory
> > ordering or something like that?
>
> Indeed without the Sync implementation, it does not make sense to have
> atomic ops that take &self.
> Sorry for the confusion, I should have added the Sync implementation.
Hang on, the Sync implementation is actually there in this patch! It
was missing previously.
Does that clarify things?
cheers,
Burak
Powered by blists - more mailing lists