[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKOZueu37C49TGny85_LZ_yp+NgQtWfjpBU0CB7OS6HFF-CeHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 12:17:37 -0700
From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
Chenbo Feng <fengc@...gle.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Add BPF_SYNCHRONIZE bpf(2) command
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
wrote:
> By the way just curious I was briefly going through kernel/bpf/arraymap.c.
> How are you protecting against load-store tearing of values of array map
> updates/lookups?
>
> For example, if userspace reads an array map at a particular index, while
> another CPU is updating it, then userspace can read partial values /
> half-updated values right? Since rcu_read_lock is in use, I was hoping to
> find something like rcu_assign_pointer there to protect readers against
> concurrent updates. Thanks for any clarification.
I'm also curious about the answer to this question.
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists