linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures

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:	Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:02:13 +0530 (IST)
From:	Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
To:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	horms@...ge.net.au, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de, cfriesen@...tel.com,
	rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, zlynx@....org,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, davem@...emloft.net,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all
 architectures

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> > Here, I should obviously admit that the semantics of *(volatile int *)&
> > aren't any neater or well-defined in the _language standard_ at all. The
> > standard does say (verbatim) "precisely what constitutes as access to
> > object of volatile-qualified type is implementation-defined", but GCC
> > does help us out here by doing the right thing.
> 
> Where do you get that idea?

Try a testcase (experimentally verify).

> GCC manual, section 6.1, "When
> is a Volatile Object Accessed?" doesn't say anything of the
> kind.

True, "implementation-defined" as per the C standard _is_ supposed to mean
"unspecified behaviour where each implementation documents how the choice
is made". So ok, probably GCC isn't "documenting" this
implementation-defined behaviour which it is supposed to, but can't really
fault them much for this, probably.
-
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/