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: <200906011141.33463.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:41:32 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] asm-generic: add dma-mapping-linear.h

On Monday 01 June 2009, Russell King wrote:

> So, on a non-DMA coherent cache architecture, when DMA is normally
> performed the data ends up in RAM with the cache flushed for that
> region.  If, instead dma_map_single uses a bounce buffer to do that
> DMA, then the same needs to be true of the original buffer - the
> data needs to be in RAM with the cache flushed.

While this seems logical from a correctness perspective, I would
like to understand why it actually matters. Flushing the cache on
the original buffer will impact performance but doesn't generally
make a difference to users. In cases where you need the cache
to be flushed for aliasing reasons (VIPT caches...), the architecture
specific code should flush that buffer somewhere, but do we really
need to flush it for all architectures?

	Arnd <><
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ