netdev - Re: [net,v2] rxrpc: Fix data-race warning and potential load/store tearing

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260119093945.7929e3cb@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 09:39:45 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net,v2] rxrpc: Fix data-race warning and potential load/store
 tearing

On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 12:03:01 +0000 David Howells wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > +		   (s32)now - (s32)peer->last_tx_at,  
> >                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 
> > Should this read use READ_ONCE(peer->last_tx_at) for consistency with the
> > data-race fix?  The new rxrpc_peer_get_tx_mark() uses READ_ONCE for the
> > same field, and the same seq_printf uses READ_ONCE for recent_srtt_us and
> > recent_rto_us on the following lines.  
> 
> I suppose.  Racing doesn't matter here as it's just displaying the value;
> tearing might matter, but it's now a 32-bit field.

Right, total nit pick. It's mostly for consistency with other fields in
the same print statement that are READ_ONCE()d.