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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:25:30 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com, htejun@...il.com, jarkao2@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, davidel@...ilserver.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock * Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 11:24:38AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote: > > > > > Ingo Molnar a écrit : > > > > * Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h > > > >> @@ -302,4 +302,7 @@ static inline void __raw_write_unlock(raw_rwlock_t *rw) > > > >> #define _raw_read_relax(lock) cpu_relax() > > > >> #define _raw_write_relax(lock) cpu_relax() > > > >> > > > >> +/* The {read|write|spin}_lock() on x86 are full memory barriers. */ > > > >> +#define smp_mb__after_lock() do { } while (0) > > > > > > > > Two small stylistic comments, please make this an inline function: > > > > > > > > static inline void smp_mb__after_lock(void) { } > > > > #define smp_mb__after_lock > > > > > > > > (untested) > > > > > > > >> +/* The lock does not imply full memory barrier. */ > > > >> +#ifndef smp_mb__after_lock > > > >> +#define smp_mb__after_lock() smp_mb() > > > >> +#endif > > > > > > > > ditto. > > > > > > > > Ingo > > > > > > This was following existing implementations of various smp_mb__??? helpers : > > > > > > # grep -4 smp_mb__before_clear_bit include/asm-generic/bitops.h > > > > > > /* > > > * clear_bit may not imply a memory barrier > > > */ > > > #ifndef smp_mb__before_clear_bit > > > #define smp_mb__before_clear_bit() smp_mb() > > > #define smp_mb__after_clear_bit() smp_mb() > > > #endif > > > > Did i mention that those should be fixed too? :-) > > > > Ingo > > ok, could I include it in the 2/2 or you prefer separate patch? depends on whether it will regress ;-) If it regresses, it's better to have it separate. If it wont, it can be included. If unsure, default to the more conservative option. Ingo -- 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