linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

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: <21984.1391711149@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:25:49 +0000
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...nel.org, will.deacon@....com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ramana.radhakrishnan@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

Is it worth considering a move towards using C11 atomics and barriers and
compiler intrinsics inside the kernel?  The compiler _ought_ to be able to do
these.

One thing I'm not sure of, though, is how well gcc's atomics will cope with
interrupt handlers touching atomics on CPUs without suitable atomic
instructions - that said, userspace does have to deal with signals getting
underfoot. but then userspace can't normally disable interrupts.

David
--
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/