linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an arch doesn't support it

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:25:35 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an arch
 doesn't support it

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> No.  sparc32 doesn't have one, for instance.

Ok. For SMP-safety, it's important that any architecture that can't do 
this needs to _share_ the same spinlock (on SMP only, of course) that it 
uses for the bitops. 

It would be good (but perhaps not as strict a requirement) if the atomic 
counters also use the same lock. But that is probably impossible on 
sparc32 (since it has a per-counter "lock"-like thing, iirc). So doing a 
cmpxchg() on an atomic_t would be a bug.

		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/