| 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 PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:00:05 +0200 From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu CC: "Leonidas ." <leonidas137@...il.com>, 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 10/27/2009 01:51 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu 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. Boaz -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists