linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 01/15] cmpxchg_local() is not signed-value safe, so fix generic atomics

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:	Wed, 18 May 2016 17:29:49 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, will.deacon@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ramana.radhakrishnan@....com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dwmw2@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/15] cmpxchg_local() is not signed-value safe, so fix generic atomics

On Wednesday 18 May 2016 16:10:45 David Howells wrote:
> cmpxchg_local() is not signed-value safe because on a 64-bit machine signed
> int arguments to it may be sign-extended to signed long _before_ begin cast
> to unsigned long.  This potentially causes comparisons to fail when dealing
> with negative values.
> 
> Fix the generic atomic functions that are implemented in terms of cmpxchg()
> to cast their arguments to unsigned int before calling cmpxchg().
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> 

Isn't the problem you describe something that cmpxchg() could prevent instead?

	Arnd