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  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:   Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:21:28 +0100
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tools/memory-model: Remove (dep ; rfi) from ppo

> What I do object to is a model that's weaker than any possible sane
> hardware.

Not the first time I hear you calling this out.  And inevitably, every
time, other slogans come to my mind:  "C is not an assembly language",
"No features (ordering) without users", ...

For the record, I won't try to push this patch further; I also have no
plans to touch herd7 internals in order to add the ad-hoc flag for the
(dep ; rfi) thing.  (Maybe others will/can step in here.)

In the meantime, the hope (admittedly, probably vain) is that this RFC
could serve as a further warning or as a reference to those developers
who are quivering to use (dep ; rfi): enjoy it, be careful.

  Andrea

Powered by blists - more mailing lists