netdev - Re: [patch sungem] improved locking

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:57:24 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	eric.lemoine@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch sungem] improved locking


> This looks mostly fine.
> 
> I was thinking about the lockless stuff, and I wonder if there
> is a clever way you can get it back down to one PIO on the
> GREG_STAT register.
> 
> I think you'd need to have the ->poll() clear gp->status, then
> do a smp_wb(), right before it re-enables interrupts.
> 
> Then in the interrupt handler, you need to find a way to safely
> OR-in any unset bits in gp->status in a race-free manner.

Having it atomic might work at a slightly smaller cost than a lock,
though atomics don't have strong ordering requirements so you'd still
have to be a bit careful.

Ben.


-
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