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: <20140206184241.GF4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:42:41 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...nel.org, will.deacon@....com,
	ramana.radhakrishnan@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:25:49PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> 
> 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.

Makes sense to me!

> 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.

Perhaps make the C11 definitions so that any arch can override any
specific definition?

							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/