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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071028181918.28014.qmail@science.horizon.com>
Date:	28 Oct 2007 14:19:18 -0400
From:	linux@...izon.com
To:	bart.vanassche@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	aph@...hat.com, linux@...izon.com
Subject: Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

Just a note on the attribute((acquire,release)) proposal:

It's nice to be able to annotate functions, but please don't forget to
provide a way to write such functions.  Ultimately, there will be an
asm() or assignment that is the acquire or release point, and GCC needs
to know that so it can compile the function itself (possibly inline).

Having just a function attribute leaves the problem that

void __attribute__((noreturn))
_exit(int status)
{
	asm("int 0x80" : : (__NR_exit) "a", (status) "b" );
}

generates a complaint about a noreturn function returning, because
there's no way to tell GCC about a non-returning statement.
-
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/