linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] asm-generic:remove calling flush_write_buffers() in dma_sync_*_for

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: <200906291822.18334.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:22:17 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
Cc:	tom.leiming@...il.com, fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] asm-generic:remove calling flush_write_buffers() in dma_sync_*_for_cpu

On Monday 29 June 2009, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 03:34:35PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sunday 28 June 2009 14:39:19 tom.leiming@...il.com wrote:
> > > From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
> > > 
> > > dma_sync_*_for_cpu() is introduced to make cpu access dma buffers safely when
> > > dma transfer is over, it seems there is nothing to do with cpu write buffer,
> > > so remove it.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
> > 
> > Right, this looks correct. On a related note, flush_write_buffers is
> > architecture specific right now: only x86 and frv implement it at all,
> > though and with slightly different semantics.
> 
> This doen't look correct to me. The sync functions may do bounce buffering
> which is all about copying data from one place in main memory to another. So we
> need these flush_write_buffer() calls in the _for_cpu path too.

Right, I didn't consider that.

Wouldn't it be better to put the flush_write_buffer in the specific
operation (swiotlb_sync_*_for_*) rather than the multiplexer?

Maybe in that case, smp_wmb() would be more appropriate because
it is defined on all architectures.

> > Maybe it would be more consistent to change the dma_map_* and
> > dma_sync_*_for_device stuff there to wmb() to make it  portable
> > to other architectures.
> 
> If we change it to wmb() it would be executed every time there even if the
> processor doesn't require it. Other architectures could simply add a
> flush_write_buffers() implemention if they want to adapt the common dma-mapping
> implementation, no?

As mentioned, the definition of flush_write_buffers() seems a little dodgy,
I would feel much more comfortable with putting it into the architecture
specific code or using one of the existing common barriers, since we already
have so many of them.

	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/