linux-kernel - Re: RFC: outb 0x80 in inb_p, outb_p harmful on some modern AMD64 with MCP51 laptops

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: <475EC24E.4070900@zytor.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:01:02 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
CC:	David Newall <david@...idnewall.com>,
	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"David P. Reed" <dpreed@...d.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: outb 0x80 in inb_p, outb_p harmful on some modern AMD64
 with MCP51 laptops

Rene Herman wrote:
> On 11-12-07 02:25, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
>> David Newall wrote:
>>> Where did the 8us delay come from?  The documentation and source is 
>>> careful not to say how long the delay is.  Would changing it to, say 
>>> 1us, be technically wrong?  Is code that requires 8us correct?
>>
>> I think a single ISA bus transaction is 1 µs, so two of them back to 
>> back should be 2 µs, not 8 µs...
> 
> Sigh. And now where do these _two_ transactions come from? (and yes, see 
> Alan's folowups, a transaction on a spec bus is 1 us).
> 

Stale memory, sorry.

	-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/