netdev - 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]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFy9oJSK99K=brRzSfSnLocO=PuS7yuKkAcw3t5hATJrfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:34:48 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] should VM_BUG_ON(cond) really evaluate cond

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>
> Seems reasonable too. In fact we usually should have memory barriers
> for this anyways which obsolete the volatile.

No we shouldn't. Memory barriers are insanely expensive, and pointless
for atomics - that aren't ordered anyway.

You may mean compiler barriers.

That said, removing the volatile entirely might be a good idea, and
never mind any barriers at all. The ordering for atomics really isn't
well enough specified that we should care. So I wouldn't object to a
patch that just removes the volatile entirely, but it would have to be
accompanied with quite a bit of testing, in case some odd case ends up
depending on it. But nothing *should* be looping on those things
anyway.

                       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