linux-kernel - questions about native alpha futex implementation

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b4198de60812171113r72d8d04ao67cde38c62185bcc@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:13:15 -0500
From:	"Matt Turner" <mattst88@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	"Ivan Kokshaysky" <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>, rth@...ddle.net,
	"Jay Estabrook" <jay.estabrook@...com>
Subject: questions about native alpha futex implementation

Hi,

Alpha uses a generic futex implementation, which causes some problems [1].

I've read through the code, and it appears as if the implementation
could be done by using the ldq_l/stq_c instructions, relatively easy I
might add. I'm definitely interested in implementing this, but first...

I have only a few questions.

1) What are the benefits of a native futex implementation, other than
fixing the glibc test failures?
2) Is there a technical reason it hasn't been implemented on Alpha?
3) Am in correct that it could be done with ldq_l/stq_c instructions?

I'm not experienced with kernel development, but I'd like to learn, so
please bear with me.

Thanks,

Matt Turner

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205099
--
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/