linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03 of 36] x86: add memory barriers to wrmsr

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:	Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:08:57 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	x86@...nel.org, xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Stephen Tweedie <sct@...hat.com>,
	Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>,
	Mark McLoughlin <markmc@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03 of 36] x86: add memory barriers to wrmsr

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> it's more readable for several of these cases to stick a barrier(); in
> front and after it to be honest; that makes it more explicit that
> these are deliberate compiler barriers rather than "actual" memory
> access...
>
>   

I suppose, though I would be inclined to put the barriers in the wrmsr 
macro itself to act as documentation.  Either way, I don't think there's 
any legitimate reason to let the compiler reorder things around a wrmsr, 
and it should be an inherent property of the macro, rather than relying 
on ad-hoc barriers where it gets used.  After all, that's a fairly 
accurate reflection of how the micro-architecture treats wrmsr...

    J
--
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/