linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 08/18] cnt32_to_63 should use smp

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: <20081107082926.ee3e1efe.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:29:26 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 08/18] cnt32_to_63 should use smp_rmb()

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:21:55 +0000 David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:

> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > If gcc did that then it would need to generate static instances of
> > inlined functions within individual compilation units.  It would be a
> > disaster for the kernel.  For a start, functions which are "inlined" in kernel
> > modules wouldn't be able to access their static storage and modprobing
> > them would fail.
> 
> Do you expect a static inline function that lives in a header file and that
> has a static variable in it to share that static variable over all instances
> of that function in a program?  Or do you expect the static variable to be
> limited at the file level?  Or just at the invocation level?

I'd expect it to behave in the same way as it would if the function was
implemented out-of-line.

But it occurs to me that the modrobe-doesnt-work thing would happen if
the function _is_ inlined anyway, so we won't be doing that.

Whatever.  Killing this many puppies because gcc may do something so
bizarrely wrong isn't justifiable.

--
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/