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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 6 Jun 2019 14:17:36 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <>,
        Vineet Gupta <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        arcml <>,
        lkml <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: single copy atomicity for double load/stores on 32-bit systems

On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 04:34:52PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Paul E. McKenney
> > Sent: 06 June 2019 10:44
> ...
> > But m68k is !SMP-only, correct?  If so, the only issues would be
> > interactions with interrupt handlers and the like, and doesn't current
> > m68k hardware use exact interrupts?  Or is it still possible to interrupt
> > an m68k in the middle of an instruction like it was in the bad old days?
> Hardware interrupts were always on instruction boundaries, the
> mid-instruction interrupts would only happen for page faults (etc).

OK, !SMP should be fine, then.

> There were SMP m68k systems (but I can't remember one).
> It was important to continue from a mid-instruction trap on the
> same cpu - unless you could guarantee that all the cpus had
> exactly the same version of the microcode.

Yuck!  ;-)

> In any case you could probably use the 'cmp2' instruction
> for an atomic 64bit write.
> OTOH setting that up was such a PITA it was always easier
> to disable interrupts.

Unless I am forgetting something, given that m68k is a 32-bit system,
we should be OK without an atomic 64-bit write.

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists