linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 2

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46455168.6080904@zytor.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 May 2007 22:32:24 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	pradeep singh <p.singh.rautela@...il.com>
CC:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Heikki Orsila <shdl@...alwe.fi>,
	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 2

pradeep singh wrote:
> 
> Sorry, for my misunderstanding but i hope Jonathan actually means
> volatile harmful only in C and not while using extended asm with gcc? Or
> does you all consider volatile while using extended asm as harmful too?
> Incidentally i came to know that using volatile in such cases may be
> still be optimized by the gcc. And the correct way is to fake a side
> effect to the gcc, which can be done using "memory" clobbering directive
> in the correct place and not "m" or "+m".
> 
> Does this means to exclude volatile from extended asm also, while using
> them in kernel?
> 

We were talking about "register", not "volatile".

	-hpa
-
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/