linux-kernel - Re: Difference between atomic operations and memory barriers

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: <FB7BE58D-B492-411D-A630-7F7A4424FD30@noahdesu.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:42:50 -0700
From:	Noah Watkins <noah@...hdesu.com>
To:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc:	"Leonidas ." <leonidas137@...il.com>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
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 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/