linux-kernel - Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

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, 26 Oct 2007 11:39:40 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	Andrew Haley <aph@...hat.com>
CC:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, davids@...master.com,
	"Torvalds, Linus" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Kleen, Andi" <ak@...e.de>,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

Andrew Haley wrote:

> We're listening, really.  It's unacceptable that gcc should break
> code.

In that case a conversion of a conditional branch to an unconditional 
write to a visible variable is not an acceptable behaviour.  Aside from 
the kernel issues, it would break any number of threaded userspace apps.

As was mentioned elsewhere, it's akin to sprinkling

int j = i; i = j;

throughout the code.  If "i" is accessed by multiple threads, this is 
not allowed unless a lock is held.

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/