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:	Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:56:39 +0200
From:	Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>
To:	Jeremy Higdon <jeremy@....com>
CC:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tpiepho@...escale.com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	scottwood@...escale.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue

Jeremy Higdon wrote:
> We don't actually have that problem on the Altix.  All writes issued
> by CPU X will be ordered with respect to each other.  But writes by
> CPU X and CPU Y will not be, unless an mmiowb() is done by the
> original CPU before the second CPU writes.  I.e.
> 
> 	CPU X	writel
> 	CPU X	writel
> 	CPU X	mmiowb
> 
> 	CPU Y	writel
> 	...
> 
> Note that this implies some sort of locking.  Also note that if in
> the above, CPU Y did the mmiowb, that would not work.

Hmmm,

Then it's less bad than I thought - my apologies for the confusion.

Would we be able to use Ben's trick of setting a per cpu flag in
writel() then and checking that in spin unlock issuing the mmiowb()
there if needed?


Cheers,
Jes
--
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/