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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:05:58 +0100 From: Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com> To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>, "gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 12:23 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 08:55:47PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > On Sat, 2014-02-15 at 10:49 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think a major benefit of C11's memory model is that it gives a > > > > *precise* specification for how a compiler is allowed to optimize. > > > > > > Clearly it does *not*. This whole discussion is proof of that. It's > > > not at all clear, > > > > It might not be an easy-to-understand specification, but as far as I'm > > aware it is precise. The Cambridge group's formalization certainly is > > precise. From that, one can derive (together with the usual rules for > > as-if etc.) what a compiler is allowed to do (assuming that the standard > > is indeed precise). My replies in this discussion have been based on > > reasoning about the standard, and not secret knowledge (with the > > exception of no-out-of-thin-air, which is required in the standard's > > prose but not yet formalized). > > > > I agree that I'm using the formalization as a kind of placeholder for > > the standard's prose (which isn't all that easy to follow for me > > either), but I guess there's no way around an ISO standard using prose. > > > > If you see a case in which the standard isn't precise, please bring it > > up or open a C++ CWG issue for it. > > I suggest that I go through the Linux kernel's requirements for atomics > and memory barriers and see how they map to C11 atomics. With that done, > we would have very specific examples to go over. Without that done, the > discussion won't converge very well. > > Seem reasonable? Sounds good! -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists