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: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 18:59:33 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>, "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, "linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, Miroslav Franc <mfranc@...hat.com>, Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: bit fields && data tearing On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:47:35PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: > On 09/08/2014 01:59 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > >> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700 > >> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Which is a bit ironic because I remember when Digital had a team > >>>> working on emulating native x86 apps on Alpha/NT. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Right, because the x86 architecture was obsolete and would never scale... > >> > >> Talking about "not scaling" can anyone explain how a "you need to use > >> set_bit() and friends" bug report scaled into a hundred message plus > >> discussion about ambiguous properties of processors (and nobody has > >> audited all the embedded platforms we support yet, or the weirder ARMs) > >> and a propsal to remove Alpha support. > >> > >> Wouldn't it be *much* simpler to do what I suggested in the first place > >> and use the existing intended for purpose, deliberately put there, > >> functions for atomic bitops, because they are fast on sane processors and > >> they work on everything else. > >> > >> I think the whole "removing Alpha EV5" support is basically bonkers. Just > >> use set_bit in the tty layer. Alpha will continue to work as well as it > >> always has done and you won't design out support for any future processor > >> that turns out not to do byte aligned stores. > >> > >> Alan > >> > > > > Is *that* what we are talking about? I was added to this conversation > > in the middle where it had already generalized, so I had no idea. > > No, this is just what brought this craziness to my attention. > > For example, byte- and short-sized circular buffers could not possibly > be safe either, when the head nears the tail. > > Who has audited global storage and ensured that _every_ byte-sized write > doesn't happen to be adjacent to some other storage that may not happen > to be protected by the same (or any) lock? This was my concern as well. Thanx, Paul -- 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