linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3

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]

Message-ID: <a781481a0705112315u5843abaar292859428ec60603@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 12 May 2007 11:45:43 +0530
From:	"Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Johannes Stezenbach" <js@...uxtv.org>,
	"Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
	"Randy Dunlap" <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	"Heikki Orsila" <shdl@...alwe.fi>,
	"jimmy bahuleyan" <knight.camelot@...il.com>,
	"Stefan Richter" <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3

On 5/12/07, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> >> +  - Pointers to data structures in coherent memory which might be
> >> modified
> >> +    by I/O devices can, sometimes, legitimately be volatile.  A ring
> >> buffer
> >> +    used by a network adapter, where that adapter changes pointers to
> >> +    indicate which descriptors have been processed, is an example of
> >> this
> >> +    type of situation.
> >
> > is a legitimate use case for volatile is still not clear to me (I
> > agree with Alan's
> > comment in a previous thread that this seems to be a case where a memory
> > barrier would be applicable^Wbetter, actually). I could be wrong here, so
> > would be nice if Peter explains why volatile is legitimate here.
> >
> > Otherwise, it's fine with me.
> >
>
> I don't see why Alan's way is necessarily better;

Because volatile is ill-defined? Or actually, *undefined* (well,
implementation-defined is as good as that)? It's *so* _vague_,
one doesn't _feel_ like using it at all!

We already have a complete API containing optimization barriers,
load/store/full memory barriers. With well-defined and
well-understood semantics. Just ... _why_ use volatile?

> it should work but is

It will _always_ work. In fact you can't really say the same for
volatile. We already assume the compiler _actually_ took some
pains to stuff meaning into C's (lack of) definition of volatile and
implement it -- but in what sense, nobody knows (the C standard
doesn't, so what are we).

> more heavy-handed as it's disabling *all* optimization such as loop
> invariants across the barrier.

This is a legitimate criticism, I agree.

Thanks,
Satyam
-
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/