linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86-32: improve atomic64

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: <ff13bc9a1003010916j860b1bbueebf8e5b21e100ad@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:16:25 +0100
From:	Luca Barbieri <luca@...a-barbieri.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86-32: improve atomic64_t functions (v2)

> Yes, and with the test turned on, the kernel crashes immediately on boot
> on x86-64.
>
> Some minor investigation reveals the following:
>
> lib/atomic64.c has the wrong return value for atomic64_add_unless().
> With "wrong" I mean it is the opposite sense compared to
> atomic_add_unless(), not just on x86 but on all architectures.
>
> Accordingly, I have to conclude that lib/atomic64.c is buggy, and that
> since your test matches that bug, I will have to conclude that your
> x86-32 implementation is also buggy.  Thus, please send patches to fix
> your test and your 32-bit implementations (and preferrably
> lib/atomic64.c too, but I can do that just fine.)

You are right: sent a patchset to fix it.
--
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/