linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] mpt2sas: remove the use of writeq, since writeq is not atomic

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: <20110519181500.GF6139@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2011 20:15:00 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>, Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>,
	Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Desai, Kashyap" <Kashyap.Desai@....com>,
	"Prakash, Sathya" <Sathya.Prakash@....com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	linux scsi dev <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>,
	linux powerpc dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	linux pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mpt2sas: remove the use of writeq, since writeq is
 not atomic


* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 21:16 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Milton Miller <miltonm@....com> wrote:
> > > So the real question should be why is x86-32 supplying a broken writeq
> > > instead of letting drivers work out what to do it when needed?
> > 
> > Sounds a lot like what I was asking a couple of years ago :)
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/19/164
> > 
> > But Ingo insisted that non-atomic writeq would be fine:
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/19/167
> 
> Yuck... Ingo, I think that was very wrong.
> 
> Those are for MMIO, which must almost ALWAYS know precisely what the
> resulting access size is going to be. It's not even about atomicity
> between multiple CPUs. I have seen plenty of HW for which a 64-bit
> access to a register is -not- equivalent to two 32-bit ones. In fact, in
> some case, you can get the side effects twice ... or none at all.
> 
> The only case where you can be lax is when you explicitely know that
> there is no side effects -and- the HW cope with different access sizes.
> This is not the general case and drivers need at the very least a way to
> know what the behaviour will be.

Ok, that's pretty convincing.

Unless hpa or tglx disagrees with reverting this, could any of you send a patch 
with a proper changelog etc. that applies cleanly to v2.6.39?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/