linux-kernel - Re: sequence lock in Linux

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: <20100611220443.GJ2394@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:04:43 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sequence lock in Linux

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 02:38:59PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/11/2010 02:36 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Memory barriers in the sequence-lock code prevent this, assuming, as
> > you point out, that memory clobber works (but if it doesn't, it should
> > be fixed):
> 
> The constness is my main concern.  It's not clear to me that "memory" is
> meant to imply that const memory areas without volatile can be clobbered.

Ah!  I was assuming that gcc treated "memory" as it would an call to
a function in some other compilation unit.  In that case, the compiler
could not count on the "const" on the argument, given the possibility
that the called function might gain a reference to the same memory
locations in a non-const manner, right?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/