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  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:	Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:17:48 -0500
From:	Scott Wood <>
To:	Kevin Hao <>
CC:	Chenhui Zhao <>,
	<>, <>,
	<>, <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] powerpc/pm: support deep sleep feature on T1040

On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 19:47 +0800, Kevin Hao wrote:
> OK, so the intention of 'twi, isync' following the load is not to order the
> following storage access, but order the following delay loop instructions,
> right? But according to the e6500 manual, the instructions complete in order.
> The following is the definition of 'complete':
>   Complete—An instruction is eligible to complete after it finishes executing
>   and makes its results available for subsequent instructions. Instructions
>   must complete in order from the bottom two entries of the
>   completion queue (CQ). The completion unit coordinates how instructions (which
>   may have executed out of order) affect architected registers to ensure the
>   appearance of serial execution. This guarantees that the completed instruction
>   and all previous instructions can cause no exceptions. An instruction completes
>   when it is retired, that is, deleted from the CQ.
> So the following delay loop instructions should never complete before the
> complete of the load instruction.

We don't want the delay loop instructions to *start* until the load has
completed.  Completion of the loop only matters when ordering the loop
versus post-loop actions (and again, there we'd want the loop to
complete before subsequent actions start).

> > > > > So if we want to order all the storage access as well
> > > > > as execution synchronization, we should choose sync here.
> > > > 
> > > > Do we need execution synchronization or context synchronization?
> > > 
> > > There is no context-altering instruction here, so I think an execution
> > > synchronizing instruction should be enough here.
> > 
> > Is the ISA ever explicit about what constitutes "context"?
> The following is the definition of context-altering instruction:
>   An instruction that alters the context in which data
>   addresses or instruction addresses are interpreted, or
>   in which instructions are executed or data accesses are
>   performed, is called a context-altering instruction.
> So the context should be:
>   - in which data addresses or instruction addresses are interpreted
>   - in which instructions are executed
>   - in which data accesses are performed

By that definition, a store to CCSR could easily change the context in
which data accesses are performed, by changing a mapping.

But still, nothing in the above defines "context" -- or rather, it does
so circularly.  While it makes intuitive sense that it would be limited
to context that lives within the core, rather than the rest of the
system, I don't think the ISA generally distinguishes between the two.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists