linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4949732A.4050207@twiddle.net>
Date:	Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:46:18 -0800
From:	Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>
To:	Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
	Jay Estabrook <jay.estabrook@...com>
Subject: Re: questions about native alpha futex implementation

Matt Turner wrote:
> 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 think all the futex stuff is 32-bits wide, so ldl_l/stl_c.
You can pretty much just copy the powerpc version, as that
platform also uses load-locked/store-conditional operations.


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/