linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 11/23] make atomic_read() and atomic

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:	Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:39:54 -0700
From:	"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
To:	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 11/23] make atomic_read() and atomic_set() behavior consistent on m32r

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> The combining, which I've mentioned *multiple*times* is
>
> 	if (atomic_read(&x) <= 1)
>
> and dammit, if that doesn't result in a *single* instruction, the code
> generation is pure and utter crap.
>
> It should result in
>
> 	cmpl $1,offset(reg)
>
> and nothing else. And there is no way in hell you are doing that with
> "atomic_read()" being inline asm.

Sorry, Linus, I don't agree. The whole point of 'volatile' is to say to the
compiler, "DO NOT OPTIMIZE THIS. What you think is harmless may break things
you do not and should not understand." The combination of the read and the
compare into a single operation is a compiler optimization.

While it would not be unreasonable to still allow this optimization (since I
cannot think of any situations in which it could be harmful), it is just as
reasonable not to.

DS

-
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/