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]

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/