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:	Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:07:09 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AFS: Fix file locking

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>So you did. Then to answer that, yes it could be faster because there are
>>stupid volatiles sprinkled all over the bitops code so you could easily
>>end up having to do more loads. Does it make a real difference? Unlikely,
>>but David loves counting cycles :)
> 
> 
> I thought we long long since removed the volatiles. They are buggy and 
> horrible, and we really want to let the compiler combine multiple 
> test-bits, and if they matter that implies locking is buggy or something 
> worse..
> 
> Ie we'd *want*
> 
> 	if (test_bit(x, y) || test_bit(z,y))
> 
> to be rewritten by the compiler as testing bits x/z at the same time.

Yep. We'd also want __set_bit(x, y); __set_bit(z, y); and such to be
combined.
> 
> But now I'm too scared to look.

Not a chance :) Even the asm-generic "reference" implementation ratifies
the volatile crapiness. Would you take a patch?

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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