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:	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:00:05 +0200
From:	Boaz Harrosh <>
CC:	"Leonidas ." <>,
	Chris Friesen <>,
	Noah Watkins <>,
	linux-kernel <>
Subject: Re: Difference between atomic operations and memory barriers

On 10/27/2009 01:51 PM, wrote:
> 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.

What don't you know? the CPU that started it all was like that, the x86 16-bit
"large" and "huge" model had a double register seg:offset set, also in-memory
was double-ints(2*16) even the i386 was running 16 bit modes for a long time.

Kernel still have 16-bit dosemu mode supported until today, no?

About the shotguns lynching and burning I'm not sure, but Intel survived
just fine.

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