linux-kernel - Re: Memory vs. MMIO ordering, again

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:	Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:32:38 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Memory vs. MMIO ordering, again

> MMIO accesses may, in effect, overtake accesses to cached memory that 
> were emitted earlier. A memory barrier isn't sufficient in such a case, 
> but rather the cache must be flushed between the cached memory write and 
> the MMIO access if the two are in any way dependent."
> 
> This seems like BS to me.. Flush the cache? How is a driver supposed to 
> know how to do that? Furthermore, why should it need to worry about this 
>   kind of detail? This seems wrong or at least a low-level detail that 
> normal code should not have to be concerned with.

There isn't really much choice in the matter. However if you are using
the normal pci_map_ and pci_alloc_coherent functions then those have your
cache management built into them and all you have to watch is compiler
funnies.

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/