| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:01:59 +0530 From: "Hannibal B" <bhannibal@...licynetworks.com> To: "Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>, <wyb@...sec.com.cn> Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: SMP share data declaration Spinlocks would be the one to protect the variable and synchronies between CPU, But it's a busy waiting mechanism(just a word of caution). Regards, Hannibal -----Original Message----- From: Jesper Juhl [mailto:jesper.juhl@...il.com] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:18 PM To: wyb@...sec.com.cn Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: SMP share data declaration On 14/07/06, wyb@...sec.com.cn <wyb@...sec.com.cn> wrote: > I know that an integer variable should be declared volatile to share between > CPUs. NO. volatile won't protect you sufficiently. Use spinlocks, mutexes, semaphores, barriers and the like to protect variables from concurrent access. Using volatile for this is a BUG and it won't work correctly. -- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists