linux-kernel - Re: Bitops source problem

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]

Message-ID: <adamyr5x86k.fsf@cisco.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:44:35 -0800
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	"Pravin Nanaware" <p.nanaware@...ilent.com>
Cc:	"John Hubbard" <john.hubbard@...il.com>,
	"LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bitops source problem

 > Then, I think there is a problem with the function written below which is meant to be atomic.
 > 
 > static __inline__ void change_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr)
 > {
 >         __asm__ __volatile__(
 >                 "btcl %1,%0"
 >                 :"=m" (ADDR)
 >                 :"Ir" (nr));
 > }

If that is indeed the source of your change_bit function then there is
a problem.  However in my kernel tree there is a LOCK_PREFIX in the
definition of the atomic version.  I don't have your exact source tree
handy, but on a local RHEL4 system, the LOCK_PREFIX is still there:

static inline void change_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long * addr)
{
        __asm__ __volatile__( LOCK_PREFIX
                "btcl %1,%0"
                :"=m" (ADDR)
                :"Ir" (nr));
}

 - R.
--
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/