linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] bitops: define gen_test_bit() the same way as the rest of functions

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: <Yp98mK3tfMrHVpvt@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Jun 2022 19:28:08 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        Brian Cain <bcain@...cinc.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] bitops: define gen_test_bit() the same way as the
 rest of functions

On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 05:57:22PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 15:43:49 +0200
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 01:49PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:

...

> > I would also propose adding a comment close to the deref that test_bit()
> > is atomic and the deref needs to remain volatile, so future people will
> > not try to do the same optimization.
> 
> I think that's also the reason why it's not underscored, right?

Non-__ prefixed bitops are atomic, __ non-atomic.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko