linux-kernel - Re: I/O memory barriers vs SMP memory barriers

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: <4039.1174903643@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:07:23 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	ARM Linux Mailing List 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...l.org, paulmck@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: I/O memory barriers vs SMP memory barriers 

Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:

> Hrm... I'm not sure I like the io_* name, I think it's even more
> confusing, people will never know when to use what ...

I'd've thought it more obvious, but given there are several types of I/O, some
of which might require different barriering to others, I can see your point.

However, I think mb() unadorned is also confusing.

> Maybe we should dig out again my attempt at properly defining semantics
> of IO accessors and related barriers and extend it to include CPU vs.
> DMA barriers.

That could be useful.

David
-
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/