netdev - Re: >Re: [RFC] should VM_BUG_ON(cond) really evaluate cond

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]

Date:	Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:19:01 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: >Re: [RFC] should VM_BUG_ON(cond) really evaluate cond

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
> What you describe is true for non atomic variables as well, its not part
> of the atomic_ops documented semantic.

Eric - your "documentation" is so much toilet paper. So don't bother
talkign about "documented semantics". Start talking about SANE
INTERFACES.

What I described is very much true of non-atomics. Nobody doubts that.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE FOR ATOMICS, DAMMIT!

And quite frankly, the behavior I described does not seem to make any
sense for atomics.

"Sane interfaces" are important. Insane interfaces lead to bugs.

                      Linus
--
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