linux-kernel - Re: Uses for memory barriers

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0609081824190.8280-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:25:24 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
cc:	paulmck@...ibm.com, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Uses for memory barriers

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> > Again you have misunderstood.  The original code was _not_ incorrect.  I 
> > was asking: Given the code as stated, would the assertion ever fail?
> 
> I claim the right to call code that fails its own assertions incorrect. :-)

Touche!

> > The code _was_ correct for my purposes, namely, to illustrate a technical 
> > point about the behavior of memory barriers.
> 
> I would say that the code may fail the assertion purely based
> on the formal definition of a memory barrier. And do so in a subtle
> and inobvious way.

But what _is_ the formal definition of a memory barrier?  I've never seen 
one that was complete and correct.

Alan Stern

-
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/