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  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]
Date:	Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:34:17 +0100
From:	Stefan Richter <>
To:	Noah Watkins <>
CC:	"Leonidas ." <>,
	Chris Friesen <>,
	linux-kernel <>
Subject: Re: Difference between atomic operations and memory barriers

Noah Watkins wrote:
>> So we can safely assume that pointer assignment will be done in an
>> atomic manner?
> See the the comment above rcu_assign_pointer in
> include/linux/rcupdate.h

This comment only talks about ordering, not about atomicity.

Again, AFAIR the ISO C spec should explain what is going to be
guaranteed atomic and what might not be atomic.

rcu_assign_pointer() itself does rely on atomicity of pointer
assignments though, like lots of code elsewhere in the kernel.
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= =-=- ==-=-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists