netdev - Re: [RFC] memory barrier cleanups

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20061207.001054.35032500.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:10:54 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ralf@...ux-mips.org
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] memory barrier cleanups

From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 21:49:46 +0000

> I believe all the below memory barriers only matter on SMP so therefore
> the smp_* variant of the barrier should be used.
> 
> I'm wondering if the barrier in net/ipv4/inet_timewait_sock.c should be
> dropped entirely.  schedule_work's implementation currently implies a
> memory barrier and I think sane semantics of schedule_work() should imply
> a memory barrier, as needed so the caller shouldn't have to worry.
> It's not quite obvious why the barrier in net/packet/af_packet.c is
> needed; maybe it should be implied through flush_dcache_page?
> 
>   Ralf
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>

Ok, Ralf this looks good, and I think your suspicions are
correct about the timewait case, I'll just delete that memory
barrier.  I put it there and aparently for now justifiable
reason :-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html