linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

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:	Tue, 08 May 2007 17:16:52 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> No, David means that "asm volatile (...)" is meaningful and OK to use.

In a driver?  Highly unlikey it is OK.  In a filesystem?  Even more 
unlikely it is OK to use.

The set of circumstances where 'volatile' is acceptable is very limited.

You will see it used properly in the definitions of writel(), for 
example.  But most drivers using 'volatile' are likely bugs.

	Jeff


-
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/