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 19:06:33 +0530 (IST)
From:	Satyam Sharma <>
To:	Linus Torvalds <>
cc:	Christoph Lameter <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Herbert Xu <>,
	Nick Piggin <>,
	Paul Mackerras <>,
	Segher Boessenkool <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,
	Chris Snook <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > 
> > No code does (or would do, or should do):
> > 
> > 	x.counter++;
> > 
> > on an "atomic_t x;" anyway.
> That's just an example of a general problem.
> No, you don't use "x.counter++". But you *do* use
> 	if (atomic_read(&x) <= 1)
> and loading into a register is stupid and pointless, when you could just 
> do it as a regular memory-operand to the cmp instruction.

True, but that makes this a bad/poor code generation issue with the
compiler, not something that affects the _correctness_ of atomic ops if
"volatile" is used for that counter object (as was suggested), because
we'd always use the atomic_inc() etc primitives to do increments, which
are always (should be!) implemented to be atomic.

> And as far as the compiler is concerned, the problem is the 100% same: 
> combining operations with the volatile memop.
> The fact is, a compiler that thinks that
> 	movl mem,reg
> 	cmpl $val,reg
> is any better than
> 	cmpl $val,mem
> is just not a very good compiler.

Absolutely, this is definitely a bug report worth opening with gcc. And
what you've said to explain this previously sounds definitely correct --
seeing "volatile" for any access does appear to just scare the hell out
of gcc and makes it generate such (poor) code.

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