linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] futex: mark futex_detect

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: <e9be6bfd-38da-cbfa-9b54-fc4d3dd94d14@gaisler.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:08:23 +0100
From:   Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, software@...sler.com
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.

-- 
Andreas