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: <4AE6D312.9040803@lumino.de>
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:01:38 +0100
From:	Michael Schnell <mschnell@...ino.de>
To:	"Leonidas ." <leonidas137@...il.com>
CC:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	Noah Watkins <noah@...hdesu.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Difference between atomic operations and memory barriers

Leonidas . wrote:
> but pointer
> assignment would still be atomic.
> 

Yep. bit maybe the assignment to the memory cell that holds the pointer
just would be optimized out and be done at all. This my be considered
atomic but of course not desired for anything atomicness is considered for.

-Michael
--
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/