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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805271459550.2958@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 27 May 2008 15:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	scottwood@...escale.com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tpiepho@...escale.com
Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue



On Tue, 27 May 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:38:22PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > re-ordering, even though I doubt it will be visible in practice. So if you 
> > > use the "__" versions, you'd better have barriers even on x86!
> > 
> > Are we also going to have __ioread*/__iowrite* ?
> 
> Didn't we already define ioread*() to have loose semantics?

They are supposed to have the same semantics as readl/writel.

And yes, it's "loose", but only when compared to inb/outb (which are 
really very strict, if you want to emulate x86 - an "outb" basically is 
not only ordered, it doesn't even post the write, and waits until it has 
hit the bus!)

		Linus
--
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/