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: <200906291845.16335.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:45:15 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>, 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, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> smp_wmb() is stronger and it would slow down x86 if we did that (we'd go
> from no-op on a coherent platform to using mfence/lfence etc)
> 
Really? In my copy of system.h, I read

#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
# ifdef CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE
#  define smp_wmb()      wmb()
# else
#  define smp_wmb()      barrier()
# endif
#else
# define smp_wmb()       barrier()
#endif

That actually looks weaker than flush_write_buffer, as it would turn into
a barrier() in case of !SMP or !X86_OOSTORE, and into an sfence instead of
lock addl on all modern CPUs in case of SMP && X86_OOSTORE.

Of course that raises the question of whether smp_wmb() is too weak in case of
!SMP or X86_PPRO_FENCE, but with the described scenario, I don't think
it does.

	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