linux-kernel - Re: atomic RAM ?

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: <4BBF0762.8040505@lumino.de>
Date:	Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:54:26 +0200
From:	Michael Schnell <mschnell@...ino.de>
To:	unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
CC:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	nios2-dev <nios2-dev@...c.et.ntust.edu.tw>
Subject: Re: atomic RAM ?

On 04/08/2010 04:15 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> /* returns one if we got the lock, zero if someone else holds it */
> bool hashlock_addr(volatile void *addr);
>   
I don't see how (to do FUTEX) a hashlock can be implemented in a way
that we stay in user mode when locking it and - if it's already locked -
we do a Kernel call for waiting on it being unlocked by another thread.
(This is what FUTEX does.)

-Michael
--
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/