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:	Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:20:34 +0000
From:	Andrew Haley <aph@...hat.com>
To:	"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
Cc:	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

David Schwartz writes:
 > 
 > > Well, yeah.  I know what you mean.  However, at this moment, some
 > > gcc developers are trying really hard not to be total d*ckheads
 > > about this issue, but get gcc fixed.  Give us a chance.
 > 
 > Can we get some kind of consensus that 'optimizations' that add
 > writes to any object that the programmer might have taken the
 > address of are invalid on any platform that supports memory
 > protection?

That's what the proposed standard language says, kinda-sorta.  There's
an informal description at
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2338.html.

Anyway, we have fixed this bug and are committing it to all open gcc
branches.  Credit to Ian Taylor for writing the patch.

Andrew.

-- 
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903
-
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/