linux-kernel - spin_is_locked() broken for uniprocessor?

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: <DE9C9034-D2CE-4D21-93D9-A10FE2580920@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:	Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:09:56 -0500
From:	Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Linux-Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>
Subject: spin_is_locked() broken for uniprocessor?

I just want to validate that what I'm seeing (for UP, non-debug  
features):

spin_is_locked() is defined as:

include/linux/spinlock.h:#define spin_is_locked(lock)    
__raw_spin_is_locked(&(lock)->raw_lock)

for UP that should get us:

include/linux/spinlock_up.h:#define __raw_spin_is_locked(lock)  ((void) 
(lock), 0)

which implies to me that spin_is_locked() will always return false.   
Is this expected behavior.

- k
--
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/