linux-kernel - Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue

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:	Tue, 27 May 2008 09:28:30 -0600
From:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:	Linux Arch list <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, scottwood@...escale.com,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Trent Piepho <tpiepho@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue

On Tue, 27 May 2008 11:33:46 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:

> However, I'm using that as an excuse to bring back my pet subject,
> which is basically, should we instead just finally mandate the use of
> explicit rmb/wmb/mb's (which boils down to barrier() on x86) to
> drivers who want to order memory consistent accesses vs. MMIO ?

To me this seems like asking for a long series of weird bugs in
drivers.  Is the cost of a barrier in an MMIO operation so high that we
can't afford to just put them in?  Alan's suggestion of no-barrier
versions for people who know what they're doing (and who think there's a
reason to care) seems like a better way to go to me.

jon

--
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/