| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1166586252.19254.118.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:44:12 +1100 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com> To: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: netif_poll_enable() & barrier Hi ! I stumbled accross what might be a bug on out of order architecture: netif_poll_enable() only does a clear_bit(). However, netif_poll_disable/enable pairs are often used as simili-spinlocks. (netif_poll_enable() has pretty much spin_lock semantics except that it schedules instead of looping). Thus, shouldn't netif_poll_disable() do an smp_wmb(); before clearing the bit to make sure that any stores done within the poll-disabled section are properly visible to the rest of the system before clearing the bit ? Cheers, Ben. - 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists