linux-kernel - Re: Intel Memory Ordering White Paper

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]

Date:	Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:37:34 -0500
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Intel Memory Ordering White Paper

Nick Piggin wrote:
> smp_rmb() should not need to do anything because loads are done
> in order anyway. Both AMD and Intel have committed to this now.
> 
> The important point is that they *appear* to be done in order. AFAIK,
> the CPUs can still do speculative and out of order loads, but throw
> out the results if they could be wrong.

Is there anything even semiofficial from VIA?  Not that the x86 
architecture isn't pretty much definable as the AMD-Intel consensus...

	-hpa

-
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/