linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/8] READ_ONCE: Enforce atomicity for {READ,WRITE}

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:   Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:24:00 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/8] READ_ONCE: Enforce atomicity for
 {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() memory accesses

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 5:56 PM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:

> +/*
> + * Use __READ_ONCE() instead of READ_ONCE() if you do not require any
> + * atomicity or dependency ordering guarantees. Note that this may result
> + * in tears!
> + */
> +#define __READ_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
> +

This probably allows writing

       extern int i;
       __READ_ONCE(i) = 1;

and not get a warning for it. How about also casting to 'const'?

        Arnd