netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across 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]

Message-Id: <d36ec7799cfb43557770951c1cd57355@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:42:08 +0200
From:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	horms@...ge.net.au, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de, cfriesen@...tel.com,
	rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, zlynx@....org,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, davem@...emloft.net,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures

>> What volatile does are a) never optimise away a read (or write)
>> to the object, since the data can change in ways the compiler
>> cannot see; and b) never move stores to the object across a
>> sequence point.  This does not mean other accesses cannot be
>> reordered wrt the volatile access.
>>
>> If the abstract machine would do an access to a volatile-
>> qualified object, the generated machine code will do that
>> access too.  But, for example, it can still be optimised
>> away by the compiler, if it can prove it is allowed to.
>
> As (now) indicated above, I had meant multiple volatile accesses to
> the same object, obviously.

Yes, accesses to volatile objects are never reordered with
respect to each other.

> BTW:
>
> #define atomic_read(a)	(*(volatile int *)&(a))
> #define atomic_set(a,i)	(*(volatile int *)&(a) = (i))
>
> int a;
>
> void func(void)
> {
> 	int b;
>
> 	b = atomic_read(a);
> 	atomic_set(a, 20);
> 	b = atomic_read(a);
> }
>
> gives:
>
> func:
> 	pushl	%ebp
> 	movl	a, %eax
> 	movl	%esp, %ebp
> 	movl	$20, a
> 	movl	a, %eax
> 	popl	%ebp
> 	ret
>
> so the first atomic_read() wasn't optimized away.

Of course.  It is executed by the abstract machine, so
it will be executed by the actual machine.  On the other
hand, try

	b = 0;
	if (b)
		b = atomic_read(a);

or similar.


Segher

-
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