linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] asm-generic: add dma-mapping-linear.h

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:	Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:41:32 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] asm-generic: add dma-mapping-linear.h

On Monday 01 June 2009, Russell King wrote:

> So, on a non-DMA coherent cache architecture, when DMA is normally
> performed the data ends up in RAM with the cache flushed for that
> region.  If, instead dma_map_single uses a bounce buffer to do that
> DMA, then the same needs to be true of the original buffer - the
> data needs to be in RAM with the cache flushed.

While this seems logical from a correctness perspective, I would
like to understand why it actually matters. Flushing the cache on
the original buffer will impact performance but doesn't generally
make a difference to users. In cases where you need the cache
to be flushed for aliasing reasons (VIPT caches...), the architecture
specific code should flush that buffer somewhere, but do we really
need to flush it for all architectures?

	Arnd <><
--
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/