linux-kernel - Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?

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:	Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:27:05 +0800
From:	Jerry Jiang <wjiang@...ilience.com>
To:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc:	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:32:23 -0400
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com> wrote:

> > It seems like this would fall more into the case of the arch providing 
> > guarantees when using locked/atomic access rather than anything 
> > SMP-related, no?.
> 
> But if you're not using SMP, the only way you get a race condition is if your 
> compiler is reordering instructions that have side effects which are invisible 
> to the compiler.  This can happen with MMIO registers, but it's not an issue 
> with an atomic_t we're declaring in real memory.
> 

Under non-SMP, some compilers would reordering instructions as they think
and C standard informally guarantees all operations on volatile data
are executed in the sequence in which they appear in the source code,
right?

So no reordering happens with volatile, right?

-- Jerry

> 	-- Chris
-
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/