Re: bit fields && data tearing
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: bit fields && data tearing
- From: Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 07:18:22 -0400
- Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>, "linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Miroslav Franc <mfranc@xxxxxxxxxx>, Richard Henderson <rth@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <20140908201722.66bc6492@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
- List-id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
- References: <20140712181328.GA8738@redhat.com> <54079B70.4050200@hurleysoftware.com> <1409785893.30640.118.camel@pasglop> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D17487172@AcuExch.aculab.com> <1409824374.4246.62.camel@pasglop> <5408E458.3@zytor.com> <54090AF4.7060406@hurleysoftware.com> <54091B30.7080100@zytor.com> <5409D76D.2070203@hurleysoftware.com> <5409D9C0.7030403@zytor.com> <20140908185240.21f52ca0@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk> <540DEE6C.2060904@zytor.com> <20140908201722.66bc6492@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
On 09/08/2014 03:17 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>> I think the whole "removing Alpha EV5" support is basically bonkers. Just
>>> use set_bit in the tty layer. Alpha will continue to work as well as it
>>> always has done and you won't design out support for any future processor
>>> that turns out not to do byte aligned stores.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>
>> Is *that* what we are talking about? I was added to this conversation
>> in the middle where it had already generalized, so I had no idea.
>>
>> -hpa
>
> Yes there are some flags in the tty layer that are vulnerable to this
> (although they've been vulnerable to it and missing a lock since last
> century with no known ill effects).
That observation cuts both ways; I'm willing to leave it vulnerable with
'no known ill effects' on the Alpha.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]