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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20071024204631.7e7e3c47@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:46:31 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "Kleen, Andi" <ak@...e.de> Subject: Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe? On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:24:49 +1000 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote: > Hi, > > Andi spotted this exchange on the gcc list. I don't think he's > brought it up here yet, but it worries me enough that I'd like > to discuss it. > > Starts here > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-10/msg00266.html > > Concrete example here > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-10/msg00275.html > > Basically, what the gcc developers are saying is that gcc is > free to load and store to any memory location, so long as it > behaves as if the instructions were executed in sequence. > this optimization btw is a serious mis-optimization, it makes memory more dirty and causes cachelines to become unshared.... I'm sure it works great on microbenchmarks but it sucks bigtime for anything real - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists