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: <45208.1256644303@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:51:43 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	"Leonidas ." <leonidas137@...il.com>
Cc:	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Noah Watkins <noah@...hdesu.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Difference between atomic operations and memory barriers

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:30:45 +0530, "Leonidas ." said:

> So we can safely assume that pointer assignment will be done in an
> atomic manner?

Has anybody ever actually made a *production* CPU that had non-atomic
pointer assignments?  And how long before the crazed programmers lynched
and burned the offending CPU designer at the stake? ;)

Non-atomic pointer assignments are the CPU design equivalent of Vogon poetry.
Just Say No. With a shotgun if needed.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped