linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Sat, 12 May 2007 09:22:00 +0200
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Johannes Stezenbach <js@...uxtv.org>,
	Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Heikki Orsila <shdl@...alwe.fi>,
	jimmy bahuleyan <knight.camelot@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3

Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Coming back to the document, we do need to document / find
> consensus on the "preferred" way to do similar business in the
> kernel, and my opinion as far as that is concerned is to shun
> volatile wherever possible (which includes the case originally
> discussed above).

I too recommend that volatile-considered-harmful.txt is not watered down
by an ever growing "but if" list.  If anybody knows what he does, he
still can program in a deviating way --- provided that he leaves a brief
comment in the code, telling why it is possible and beneficial to use
the volatile qualifier in this special case.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= -==--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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/