linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] percpu: clean up percpu variable definitions

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: <20090601.024006.98975069.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	tj@...nel.org
Cc:	JBeulich@...ell.com, andi@...stfloor.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru, rth@...ddle.net,
	linux@....linux.org.uk, hskinnemoen@...el.com, cooloney@...nel.org,
	starvik@...s.com, jesper.nilsson@...s.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
	ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp, tony.luck@...el.com,
	takata@...ux-m32r.org, geert@...ux-m68k.org, monstr@...str.eu,
	ralf@...ux-mips.org, kyle@...artin.ca, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	paulus@...ba.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, lethal@...ux-sh.org, jdike@...toit.com,
	chris@...kel.net, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	davej@...hat.com, jeremy@...source.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] percpu: clean up percpu variable definitions

From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Date: Mon,  1 Jun 2009 17:58:24 +0900

> --- a/arch/cris/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> +++ b/arch/cris/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ extern void switch_mm(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
>   * registers like cr3 on the i386
>   */
>  
> -extern volatile DEFINE_PER_CPU(pgd_t *,current_pgd); /* defined in arch/cris/mm/fault.c */
> +DECLARE_PER_CPU(pgd_t *,current_pgd); /* defined in arch/cris/mm/fault.c */
>  
>  static inline void enter_lazy_tlb(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *tsk)
>  {

Yes volatile sucks, but might this break something?

Whether the volatile is actually needed or not, it's bad to have this
kind of potential behavior changing nugget hidden in this seemingly
inocuous change.  Especially if you're the poor soul who ends up
having to debug it :-/
--
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/