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 12:42:50 -0700
From:	Noah Watkins <>
To:	Stefan Richter <>
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.
Ahh, yeh that's true.

> Again, AFAIR the ISO C spec should explain what is going to be
> guaranteed atomic and what might not be atomic.
This seems likely. I wonder if there are any strange architectures
out there that have some insane implementation.


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