netdev - Re: [PATCH] Merge GT/MV642xx Support into MV643xx Driver [7/8]

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:40:43 -0700
From:	"Dale Farnsworth" <dale@...nsworth.org>
To:	"Steven J. Hill" <sjhill@...litydiluted.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merge GT/MV642xx Support into MV643xx Driver [7/8]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 09:10:26PM -0500, Steven J. Hill wrote:
> Dale Farnsworth wrote:
> > 
> > You have replaced the use of the global PHY spinlock with a per-port spinlock.
> > However, the SMI register is shared by all ports.  The global lock is
> > needed to prevent simultaneous updates of the register by drivers for
> > multiple ports.
> > 
> > NAK
> >
> Are you sure? Notice that a majority of the spinlocks were changed to disable
> IRQs. Secondly, the lowest level mv_read/mv_write functions have to acquire
> the big mv64x60_lock before they can read or write registers. I see the PHY
> spinlock as being an additional and unnecessary lock to contend with. Am I
> make an improper assumption?

I'm sure.  (Of course, I could be wrong.)  On an SMP (or fully
preemptive) system, disabling IRQs doesn't provide sufficient
protection.  Nor does a per-port spinlock, since multiple ports
share the single register.  It seems to me that a driver-scope
lock is required.

-Dale
-
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