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: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:34:48 -0700 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] should VM_BUG_ON(cond) really evaluate cond On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote: > > Seems reasonable too. In fact we usually should have memory barriers > for this anyways which obsolete the volatile. No we shouldn't. Memory barriers are insanely expensive, and pointless for atomics - that aren't ordered anyway. You may mean compiler barriers. That said, removing the volatile entirely might be a good idea, and never mind any barriers at all. The ordering for atomics really isn't well enough specified that we should care. So I wouldn't object to a patch that just removes the volatile entirely, but it would have to be accompanied with quite a bit of testing, in case some odd case ends up depending on it. But nothing *should* be looping on those things anyway. Linus -- 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