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 19:08:56 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
Cc:	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Andrew Haley" <aph@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

> non-volatile variables. But for asm statements this can be solved by
> adding memory to the list of clobbered registers -- this will prevent
> any reordering of manipulations of non-volatile variables and asm
> statements.

IFF the processor doesn't reorder them in hardware, which on some
processors is visibly out of order when viewed from an I/O device or
another CPU.

You can stop the compiler but not the CPU - and some processors will
certainly speculatively load across conditionals, reorder writes etc

-
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/