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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 08 Sep 2014 09:45:56 -0400
From:	David L Stevens <>
To:	Sowmini Varadhan <>,
	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] Re-check for a VIO_DESC_READY data descriptor
 after short udelay()


On 09/06/2014 05:02 PM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:

> Stared at this a bit over the last two days, checked
> the documentation, discussed with dls offline - looks like 
> (a) the rmb() thing was mostly a red-herring/fud 
> (b) we do need the wmb()

	I don't think this has anything to do with your patch, but my (new) concern with the
wmb() and no matching rmb() is this text from Documentation/memory-barrier.txt:

> -------------------
> When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions, certain types of memory barrier should
> always be paired.  A lack of appropriate pairing is almost certainly an error.

I'm no mb expert, and I know of no symptoms, but it appears to be saying that
load reordering could result in a race where the READY flag could be set with
old data in other descriptor fields due to loading them in a different order --
something it says wmb() on another CPU explicitly does not prevent.

The particular case would be adding to the ring at the same time the other side
is removing from the ring, so no locks or LDC traffic would affect it.

So, it appears to me we have a missing rmb() that is needed and I don't know what
leads you to believe it isn't.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists