linux-kernel - Re: x86: Is 'volatile' necessary for readb/writeb and friends?

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]

Date:	Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:00:39 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86: Is 'volatile' necessary for readb/writeb and friends?

On Friday 04 December 2009, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> If you want to get all language-lawyery, if the object pointed to by
> "addr" is volatile, the volatile here is needed: accessing volatile
> objects via a not volatile-qualified lvalue is undefined.  But since
> this is GCC-specific code anyway, do you care?  :-)

I think the real reason for having it is to avoid a warning when
device drivers pass volatile objects. Not sure if that's a good
thing or if we should better actually warn about it.

	Arnd <><
--
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/