| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1212132267.15633.69.camel@pasglop> Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 17:24:27 +1000 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> To: Haavard Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, scottwood@...escale.com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tpiepho@...escale.com Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 08:07 +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:13:23 +1000 > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote: > > > > Currently, this is the only interface I know that can do native-endian > > > accesses, so if you take it away, I'm gonna need an alternative > > > interface that doesn't do byteswapping. > > > > Are you aware that these also don't provide any ordering guarantee ? > > Yes, but I am not aware of any alternative. > > I think the drivers I've written have the necessary barriers (or dma > ops with implicit barriers) that they don't actually depend on any > DMA vs. MMIO ordering guarantees. I hope MMIO vs. MMIO ordering is > guaranteed though? Only to the same address I'd say. Ben. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists