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  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, 18 Dec 2020 12:08:23 +0100
From:   Andreas Larsson <>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <>
Cc:     Sam Ravnborg <>, Guo Ren <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Marco Elver <>, Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Russell King <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Darren Hart <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <>,
        Elena Reshetova <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        "" <>,,
        sparclinux <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] futex: mark futex_detect_cmpxchg() as 'noinline'

On 2020-12-17 17:43, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> It does make sense to require that a single kernel can work on all
> possible hardware. So if we remove sun4m/sun4d support, all that
> is left is LEON, and you likely wouldn't need to worry about other
> CPUs any more.
> However, there is still the question whether a single kernel needs
> to work on LEON both with and without CASA. Do you still care
> about Linux users on LEON cores that do not support CASA, or is
> widespread enough that you just make it unconditional for both
> SMP and non-SMP?

We are fine with unconditional CASA for both SMP and non-SMP for LEON.

> I hope that you can make it to 5.10 then, as this contains the work
> I did for 64-bit time_t, which is required if you have users that want to
> run systems after 2038.

That is a good point! Thank you!

> FWIW, glibc-2.31 does not have support for 64-bit time_t yet, but I
> know there was interest in adding sparc support to the musl libc, which
> does support 64-bit time_t.

Yes, we will have to follow the developments regarding 64-bit time_t
in GLIBC as well.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists