linux-kernel - Re: Are there u32 atomic bitops? (or dealing w/ i

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: <20121218015705.GH4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 18 Dec 2012 01:57:05 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Are there u32 atomic bitops? (or dealing w/ i_flags)

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 05:10:21PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I want to change inode->i_flags access to be atomic -- there are some
> locking oddities right now, I think, and I want to use a new inode
> flag to signal mtime updates from page_mkwrite.  The problem is that
> i_flags is an unsigned int, and making it an unsigned long seems like
> a waste, but there aren't any u32 atomic bitops.

... and atomic accesses cost more.  A lot more on some architectures.
FWIW, atomic_t *is* 32bit on 32bit architectures, which still doesn't
make it a good idea.
--
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/