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  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]
Date:	Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:15:50 -0000
From:	"David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	"Shan Wei" <>,
	"Christoph Lameter" <>
Cc:	<>,
	"David Miller" <>,
	"NetDev" <>,
	"Herbert Xu" <>,
	"Kernel-Maillist" <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/9] net: xfrm: use this_cpu_ptr per-cpu helper

> this_cpu_read
> |-----_this_cpu_generic_read
> #define _this_cpu_generic_read(pcp)                                     \
> ({      typeof(pcp) ret__;                                              \
>         preempt_disable();                                              \
>         ret__ = *this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp));                                  \
>         preempt_enable();                                               \
>         ret__;                                                          \
> })
> this_cpu_read operations locate per-cpu variable with preemption safeļ¼Œ not
> disable interrupts. why is it atomic vs interrupts?

Hmmm...  what effect do those preemt_dis/enable() actually have?
Since a pre-empt can happen either side of them, the value
the caller sees can be for the wrong cpu anyway.

The only time I could see them being necessary is if
*this_cpu_ptr() itself needs mutex protection in order to
function correctly - and that is likely to be port specific.
On i386/amd64 where (I guess) it is an access offset by fs/gs
this isn't necessary and just wastes cpu cycles.

If the caller cares which cpu the value comes from (eg to
increment a counter) then the caller would need to disable
pre-emption across the whole operation.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists