| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4B8B6E43.9030305@zytor.com> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:35:31 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Luca Barbieri <luca@...a-barbieri.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> CC: 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) On 02/26/2010 03:23 AM, Luca Barbieri wrote: > Sent patches, both to conditionally perform the test and implement the > functions for x86 and x86-64. 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.) Cc: Paul Mackerras who did the generic atomic64_t implementation for verification that this is indeed a bug. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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