| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <5488ABE0-92BB-4DCA-9D31-1928B8432D68@kernel.crashing.org> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:47:29 +0200 From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org> To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, jeff@...zik.org, paulus@...ba.org, torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org Subject: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM > As Paulus also pointed out, having writel() behave differently > based on > some magic done earlier at map time makes it harder to understand what > happens when reading the code, and thus harder to audit drivers for > missing barriers etc... since it's not obvious at first sight wether a > driver is using ordered or relaxed semantics. I do not buy this argument because I do not believe you can "audit" a driver at "first sight". You'll have to look at the mapping call anyway, something might be wrong there (playing evil __ioremap() tricks, mapping the wrong size, whatever). I do see your point, I don't believe the ramifications are as severe as you make them to be though, esp. when compared to all the (readability, auditing!) problems that having more different interfaces for basically the same thing will bring us. Segher - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists