linux-kernel - Re: _proxy_pda still makes linking modules fail

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: <17911.14509.184728.839589@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:50:05 +1100
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@....org.pl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: _proxy_pda still makes linking modules fail

Jeremy Fitzhardinge writes:

> Or do you mean that if you have:
> 
> 	preempt_disable();
> 	use_my_percpu++;
> 	preempt_enable();
> 	// switch cpus
> 	preempt_disable();
> 	use_my_percpu++;
> 	preempt_enable();
> 
> then it will still use the old pointer to use_my_percpu?

Yes.  It can, and sometimes does.  There's no way (that I know of) to
tell gcc "all my __thread variables might have moved to a different
address".

> In principle gcc could CSE the value of smp_processor_id() across a cpu
> change in the same way.

There it's easier to make gcc do what we want, because we can use a
barrier or a volatile.  The difference is that smp_processor_id() is
ultimately the value of something, not the address of something.  We
can tell gcc "values might have changed" but have no way to say
"addresses might have changed".

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/