linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Use volatile semantics for atomic

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, 22 Sep 2014 17:42:16 -0400
From:	Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE..." <x86@...nel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE..." <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Use volatile semantics for atomic_set()

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:39:21PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> All the atomic operations have volatile semantics to prevent compiler
>> reordering. Enforce the same semantics for atomic_set() too.
>
> To what point? atomic_set() is typically not what you expect it to
> anyhow.

This is the only atomic operation which allows compiler reordering. I
am not sure why this exception was made. Any ideas as to why we do
this?

As I mentioned, this patch removes this inconsistency by disallowing
compiler reordering.

-- 
Pranith
--
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/