linux-kernel - Re: [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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.0.99.0705091137310.22593@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 May 2007 11:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeremy@...p.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

On Wed, 9 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:

> > Thus, any reliance on type-qualifying an object that represents an atomic 
> > or locking primitive on the keyword 'volatile' is misplaced.
> 
> arch/foo is generally implementation specific code.
> 

That's true, but what qualifies as an "access" to an object that is 
type qualified with the 'volatile' keyword is _implementation_ defined, 
meaning the behavior is defined by the compiler and not this new 
architecture you're proposing 'volatile' is appropriate for.  That's pure 
C99.
-
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/