linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] asm-generic: architecture independent readq/writeq for 32bit environment

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMO-S2inx3UmHvBKnZDdJCp3FG3QeoWRj5ggSThVsxnvw7DFnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:09:08 +0900
From:	Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com>
To:	"hpanvin@...il.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Kashyap Desai <Kashyap.Desai@....com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Ravi Anand <ravi.anand@...gic.com>,
	Vikas Chaudhary <vikas.chaudhary@...gic.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	Jason Uhlenkott <juhlenko@...mai.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...allels.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>,
	James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] asm-generic: architecture independent readq/writeq for
 32bit environment

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 14:59, hpanvin@...il.com <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> The point is that the type for all readq/writeq should be u64.

So do you mean that readq/writeq should be defined without
bulid_mmio_read/write?
(in the case of x86)
bulid_mmio_read/write define the parameter type of read/write[bwlq] as void *.

And are there some situations that void * typed parameter of
readq/writeq causes problems?

>
> Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 23:45, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2012 05:37 AM, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:47, hpanvin@...il.com<hpa@...or.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Should be volatile u64 * not volatile void *...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this the type of parameters?
>>>> The parameters of atomic readq/writeq defined in
>>arch/x86/include/asm/io.h
>>>> are defined as void *. I think that atomic readq/writeq and
>>non-atomic
>>>> readq/writeq
>>>> should have same typed parameters and return values.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That sounds like a bug.
>>>
>>>        -hpa
>>>
>>
>>Sorry for my bad writing, I didn't mention:
>>the parameter type == the return value type
>>
>>My intention is:
>>parameter type of atomic readq/writeq == parameter type of non-atomic
>>readq/writeq
>>&&
>>return value type of atomic readq/writeq == return value type of
>>non-atomic readq/writeq
>>
>># == means "should be equal"
>>
>>--
>>Hitoshi Mitake
>>h.mitake@...il.com
>
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



-- 
Hitoshi Mitake
h.mitake@...il.com
--
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/