linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: enforce inlining for atomics

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]

Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2015 01:46:29 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: enforce inlining for atomics

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:27:11PM +0200, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote:
> During some code analysis I realized that atomic_add, atomic_sub and
> friends are not necessarily inlined AND that each function is defined
> multiple times:
> 
> atomic_inc:          544 duplicates
> atomic_dec:          215 duplicates
> atomic_dec_and_test: 107 duplicates
> atomic64_inc:         38 duplicates
> [...]
> 
> Each definition is exact equally, e.g.:
> 
> ffffffff813171b8 <atomic_add>:
> 55         push   %rbp
> 48 89 e5   mov    %rsp,%rbp
> f0 01 3e   lock add %edi,(%rsi)
> 5d         pop    %rbp
> c3         retq
> 

Urgh, that's a GCC fail, what version and compile flags?
--
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/