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  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:	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:13:49 +0200
From:	Segher Boessenkool <>
	Nick Piggin <>,,,,, Chris Snook <>,,,,
	David Howells <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on frv

>>>>> Well if there is only one memory location involved, then smp_rmb()
>>>>> isn't
>>>>> going to really do anything anyway, so it would be incorrect to use
>>>>> it.
>>>> rmb() orders *any* two reads; that includes two reads from the same
>>>> location.
>>> If the two reads are to the same location, all CPUs I am aware of
>>> will maintain the ordering without need for a memory barrier.
>> That's true of course, although there is no real guarantee for that.
> A CPU that did not provide this property ("cache coherence") would be
> most emphatically reviled.

That doesn't have anything to do with coherency as far as I can see.

It's just about the order in which a CPU (speculatively) performs the 
(which isn't necessarily the same as the order in which it executes the
corresponding instructions, even).

> So we are pretty safe assuming that CPUs
> will provide it.

Yeah, pretty safe.  I just don't like undocumented assumptions :-)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists