linux-kernel - Re: [Linux-nvdimm] [PATCH 1/3] pmem: Initial version of persistent memory driver

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: <20150326143520.GB1557@lst.de>
Date:	Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:35:20 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [Linux-nvdimm] [PATCH 1/3] pmem: Initial version of persistent
	memory driver

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 07:12:23AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > +       struct resource *res_mem;
> > +       int err;
> > +
> > +       res_mem = request_mem_region_exclusive(pmem->phys_addr, pmem->size,
> > +                                              "pmem");
> 
> Isn't request_mem_region() enough?  i.e. it seems
> request_mem_region_exclusive() assumes no DAX, at least in theory?

This is 1:1 from the patch Ross sent, but I've been wondering why
request_mem_region_exclusive is used here.  All it does is setting the
IORESOURCE_EXCLUSIVE flag, which prevents /dev/mem and sysfs from accessing
the memory while the driver claims it. Besides pmem only a watchdog driver
and e1000 make use of this flag, and there's various function related to
it that are entirely unused.  It's a weird beast.

> This is fine for now, but I think we're going to end up with a
> continuum of solutions to this problem based on the platform and the
> device.  Some ADR platforms have firmware that takes actions like
> flushing caches on a "power going away" signal.  Other platforms have
> cache management instructions that we can use on either a per-i/o or
> per REQ_FUA/FLUSH request.  Hmm, with this being in the memory map by
> default I think this poses a challenge for VIVT caches and aliased
> accesses?  We can revisit this when arm support shows up.

Yes, I expect us to pass flags related to this through the platform_data
eventually, but I think that starting with the simplest and safest version
is probably the best idea.
--
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/