linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily

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: <20121104155204.GA30288@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 4 Nov 2012 16:52:04 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the
	readers unnecessarily

On 11/04, George Spelvin wrote:
>
> Grand poo-bah Linus wrote:
> > Now, I doubt you'll find an architecture or C compiler where this will
> > actually ever make a difference, but the fact remains that you
> > shouldn't use signed integers for counters like this. You should use
> > unsigned, and you should rely on the well-defined modulo-2**n
> > semantics.
>
> Actually, this is another C standard undefined case that recent versions of
> GCC exploit for optimization.
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is another thing,

> For example, the loop:
> 	for (i = 1; i; i++)
> 		/* Code */
> will never terminate!  Feed the following to gcc -O2 and see for yourself:

Yes, because ...

> Notice the lack of test in the "jmp .L2" loop.

Exactly.

But if we have like

	int A, B;

	int sum(void)
	{
		return A + B;
	}

then I doubt there is any architecture (at least supported by linux)
which can generate the different code if you do s/int/unsigned/.


Anyway I agree, unsigned makes more sense, and I changed this patch
accordingly..

Oleg.

--
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/