netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on alpha

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.4.64.0708092123270.22584@anakin>
Date:	Thu, 9 Aug 2007 21:25:43 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
cc:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
	wjiang@...ilience.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org,
	heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ak@...e.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	horms@...ge.net.au, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, zlynx@....org,
	rpjday@...dspring.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on alpha

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > > The only safe way to get atomic accesses is to write
> > > > assembler code.  Are there any downsides to that?  I don't
> > > > see any.
> > > 
> > > The assumption that aligned word reads and writes are atomic, and that
> > > words are aligned unless explicitly packed otherwise, is endemic in the
> > > kernel.  No sane compiler violates this assumption.  It's true that we're
> > > not portable to insane compilers after this patch, but we never were in
> > > the first place.
> > 
> > You didn't answer my question: are there any downsides to using
> > explicit coded-in-assembler accesses for atomic accesses?  You
> > can handwave all you want that it should "just work" with
> > volatile accesses, but volatility != atomicity, volatile in C
> > is really badly defined, GCC never officially gave stronger
> > guarantees, and we have a bugzilla full of PRs to show what a
> > minefield it is.
> > 
> > So, why not use the well-defined alternative?
> 
> Because we don't need to, and it hurts performance.

It hurts performance by implementing 32-bit atomic reads in assembler?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds
-
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