linux-kernel - RE: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

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:	Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:06:13 -0700
From:	"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
To:	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

> Well, yeah.  I know what you mean.  However, at this moment, some gcc
> developers are trying really hard not to be total d*ckheads about this
> issue, but get gcc fixed.  Give us a chance.
>
> Andrew.

Can we get some kind of consensus that 'optimizations' that add writes to
any object that the programmer might have taken the address of are invalid
on any platform that supports memory protection? That seems like obvious
common sense to me.

And it has the advantage that it can't be language-lawyered. There is no
document that states the rational requirements of a compiler that's going to
support a memory protection model. So they can be anything rational people
think they should be.

DS

-
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/