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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:25:41 +0530 (IST) From: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org> To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org> cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, horms@...ge.net.au, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>, ak@...e.de, cfriesen@...tel.com, rpjday@...dspring.com, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, jesper.juhl@...il.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, zlynx@....org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, schwidefsky@...ibm.com, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, 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 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 > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/16/231 (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 standard). > > > 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 majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists