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  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:	Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:25:41 +0530 (IST)
From:	Satyam Sharma <>
To:	Segher Boessenkool <>
cc:	Christoph Lameter <>,
	Paul Mackerras <>,,, Stefan Richter <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	David Miller <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Ilpo Järvinen <>,,,,
	Netdev <>,,,,
	Andrew Morton <>,, Chris Snook <>,
	Herbert Xu <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> > > > No it does not have any volatile semantics. atomic_dec() can be
> > > > reordered
> > > > at will by the compiler within the current basic unit if you do not add
> > > > a
> > > > barrier.
> > > 
> > > "volatile" has nothing to do with reordering.
> > 
> > If you're talking of "volatile" the type-qualifier keyword, then
> > (and sub-thread below it) shows
> > otherwise.
> I'm not sure what in that mail you mean, but anyway...
> Yes, of course, the fact that "volatile" creates a side effect
> prevents certain things from being reordered wrt the atomic_dec();
> but the atomic_dec() has a side effect *already* so the volatile
> doesn't change anything.

That's precisely what that sub-thread (read down to the last mail
there, and not the first mail only) shows. So yes, "volatile" does
have something to do with re-ordering (as guaranteed by the C

> > > atomic_dec() writes
> > > to memory, so it _does_ have "volatile semantics", implicitly, as
> > > long as the compiler cannot optimise the atomic variable away
> > > completely -- any store counts as a side effect.
> > 
> > I don't think an atomic_dec() implemented as an inline "asm volatile"
> > or one that uses a "forget" macro would have the same re-ordering
> > guarantees as an atomic_dec() that uses a volatile access cast.
> The "asm volatile" implementation does have exactly the same
> reordering guarantees as the "volatile cast" thing,

I don't think so.

> if that is
> implemented by GCC in the "obvious" way.  Even a "plain" asm()
> will do the same.

Read the relevant GCC documentation.

[ of course, if the (latest) GCC documentation is *yet again*
  wrong, then alright, not much I can do about it, is there. ]
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