netdev - Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures

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:	Thu, 9 Aug 2007 01:18:22 +0200
From:	"Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
To:	"Chris Snook" <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	ak@...e.de, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org, horms@...ge.net.au,
	wjiang@...ilience.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures

On 09/08/2007, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com> wrote:
> From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
>
> Some architectures currently do not declare the contents of an atomic_t to be
> volatile.  This causes confusion since atomic_read() might not actually read
> anything if an optimizing compiler re-uses a value stored in a register, which
> can break code that loops until something external changes the value of an
> atomic_t.  Avoiding such bugs requires using barrier(), which causes re-loads
> of all registers used in the loop, thus hurting performance instead of helping
> it, particularly on architectures where it's unnecessary.  Since we generally
> want to re-read the contents of an atomic variable on every access anyway,
> let's standardize the behavior across all architectures and avoid the
> performance and correctness problems of requiring the use of barrier() in
> loops that expect atomic_t variables to change externally.  This is relevant
> even on non-smp architectures, since drivers may use atomic operations in
> interrupt handlers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
>

Hmm, I thought we were trying to move away from volatile since it is
very weakly defined and towards explicit barriers and locks...
Points to --> Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt


-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html