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: <4722265C.7050907@nortel.com> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists