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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <55137.84.105.60.153.1259956481.squirrel@gate.crashing.org>
Date:	Fri, 4 Dec 2009 20:54:41 +0100 (CET)
From:	"Segher Boessenkool" <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	"Segher Boessenkool" <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	"Rusty Russell" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86: Is 'volatile' necessary for readb/writeb and friends?

>>> static inline unsigned char readb(const volatile void __iomem *addr) {
>>
>> This "volatile" is meaningless.
>
> Wrong.  "volatile" here is an assertion that it is safe to pass pointer
> to a volatile object to this function.

Yes, sorry.  What I meant is: this volatile has no effect on what
the rest of the function does.

> Either way, it works, it is guaranteed to be safe, and removing it can
> only introduce bugs, not remove them.

Oh definitely, I wasn't suggesting otherwise.


Segher

--
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/