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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:07:34 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Subject: Re: use of volatile in iounmap()? Sam Ravnborg wrote: >>> >> Yes. The use of volatile in a function prototype like this means that >> it is valid to pass a volatile pointer to that function -- in other >> words, we're telling gcc that we're not going to do anything with the >> pointer that is invalid for a volatile pointer. > If I understand you correct then it is then not wrong to say > that we have the argument volatile to avoid warnings from gcc > when we pass a volatile pointer. > > And then having the pointer marked volatile put a few restrictions > on iounmap(). Correct. >> A lot of the "volatile considered harmful" stuff that has been bandied >> about is explicitly about marking *data* items volatile (it does have >> its uses, but it's easy to get wrong); Linus has explicitly made the >> distinction between volatile *data* and volatile *operations*. > > Yes - but unfortunately the volatile-considered-harmful.txt > does many deal with the data part. Yes, it does. -hpa -- 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