Hello, Herbert. On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 09:43:27AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > Well had you said this in the first place I would've fixed it a > long time ago. There aren't any in-kernel users right now and > even if there were they'd have to do a connect/bind/sendmsg on > the same socket in two threads at the same time. But let's close > this theoretical hole:
I'm not even sure we guarantee memory barrier on kernel/user crossings. In practice, we probably have enough barriers (e.g. some syscall traps imply barrier) but I can't think of a reason why we'd guarantee the existence of barrier there. As an extreme example, imagine UML on an architecture with relaxed memory model. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
