linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] MIPS: HIGHMEM DMA on noncoherent MIPS32 processors

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:	Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:32:31 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
To:	Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@...il.com>
Cc:	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, Gary King <gking@...dia.com>,
	dediao@...co.com, ddaney@...iumnetworks.com, dvomlehn@...co.com,
	sshtylyov@...sta.com, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] MIPS: HIGHMEM DMA on noncoherent MIPS32 processors

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Kevin Cernekee wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org> wrote:
> > It's this disabling of interrupts which I don't like.  It's easy to get
> > around it by having one kmap type for each of process, softirq and
> > interrupt context.
> 
> I am curious as to why ARM opted for the "pte push/pop" strategy
> (kmap_high_l1_vipt()) instead of something along these lines?
> 
> Is there a reason why using 3 kmap types to solve the "interrupted
> flush problem" would work for MIPS, but is not a good solution on ARM?

It would probably be a good solution for ARM as well.


Nicolas