linux-kernel - Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM

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]

Message-Id: <20060911.062144.74719116.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 11 Sep 2006 06:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	segher@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:	jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, jeff@...zik.org, paulus@...ba.org,
	torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM

From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:01:20 +0200

> Why not just keep writel() etc. for *both* purposes; the address cookie
> it gets as input can distinguish between the required behaviours for
> different kinds of I/Os; it will have to be setup by the arch-specific
> __ioremap() or similar.

This doesn't work when the I/O semantics are encoded into the
instruction, not some virual mapping PTE bits.  We'll have to use
a conditional or whatever in that case, which is silly.
-
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/