| 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: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:56:29 +0100 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, mtk.manpages@...il.com, rdunlap@...otime.net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: atomics: document that linux expects certain atomic behaviour from unsigned long On Sat 2009-01-03 20:30:44, Alan Cox wrote: > > If it is okay and linux relies on it, it should be documented. > > > > If it is not okay, I guess we should document it, too -- it seems to > > be common mistake. > > A lot of old code did it knowing it was under the BKL, outside of the BKL > its a very bad idea. There were lots of them in the tty layer and I don't > doubt there are some left I missed too 8( I have seen this in new code (some LED driver last time), definitely no BKL. Is there concrete architecture where it breaks? I'd expect i386/x86-64 to be safe, and pretty much everyone to be safe as long as that long is aligned.... or that was the result of arch-maintainers discussion... I'd really like to document if it is right or not, so that I can point people to documentation... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists