linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] tools/memory-model: Add an exception for limitations on

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.2002271314081.1730-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 13:16:37 -0500 (EST)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>
cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] tools/memory-model: Add an exception for limitations
 on _unless() family

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, Luc Maranget wrote:

> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > 
> > > According to Luc, atomic_add_unless() is directly provided by herd7,
> > > therefore it can be used in litmus tests. So change the limitation
> > > section in README to unlimit the use of atomic_add_unless().
> > 
> > Is this really true?  Why does herd treat atomic_add_unless() different
> > from all the other atomic RMS ops?  All the other ones we support do
> > have entries in linux-kernel.def.
> 
> I think this to be true :)
> 
> As far as I remember atomic_add_unless is quite different fron other atomic
> RMW ops and called for a specific all-OCaml implementation, without an
> entry in linux-kernel.def. As to  atomic_long_add_unless, I was not aware
> of its existence.

Can you explain what is so different about atomic_add_unless?

Alan