linux-kernel - Re: USB mass storage and ARM cache coherency

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: <20100226220351.GE23933@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:03:52 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Matthew Dharm <mdharm-kernel@...-eyed-alien.net>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, "Mankad, Maulik Ojas" <x0082077@...com>,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>,
	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
	Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Shilimkar, Santosh" <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: USB mass storage and ARM cache coherency

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 08:49:40AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> It will deadlock if you use normal IRQs. I don't see a good way around
> that other than using a higher-level type of IRQs. I though ARM has
> something like that (FIQs ?). Can you use those guys for IPIs ?

If the hardware did support using FIQs for IPIs, this would not be
desirable because then it takes it away from the SoC folk to do what
they will with it.

In the past, it's been used as a fast CPU-driven "DMA" interface -
some SoCs have been wired up in such a way that's the only use
available for the FIQ.

The other problem we'd encounter using FIQs for IPIs is that some IPIs
need to take locks - and in order to make that safe, we'd either need
another class of locks which disable IRQs and FIQs together, or we'd
need to disable FIQs everywhere we disable IRQs - at which point FIQs
become utterly pointless.

(There only differences between FIQ and IRQ are:
 - on simultaneous raising of both, the FIQ will be called before the IRQ.
 - each has its own (single) vector.
 - invocation of FIQ masks IRQ.

What I'm saying is that what gives FIQ an advantage for SoC people is
that it's bare bones light weight and therefore extremely fast - as soon
as you load it up with additional complexity, it becomes less useful.)

--
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/