linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] irqchip: bcm2836: Use a more generic memory barrier call

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: <5708927E.9030406@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 2016 23:26:22 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
Cc:	linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] irqchip: bcm2836: Use a more generic memory barrier
 call

On 04/08/2016 12:20 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> writes:
>
>> On 04/04/2016 09:44 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>> dsb() requires an argument on arm64, so we needed to add "sy".
>>> Instead, take this opportunity to switch to the same smp_wmb() call
>>> that gic uses for its IPIs.  This is a less strong barrier than we
>>> were doing before (dmb(ishst) compared to dsb(sy)), but it seems to be
>>> the correct one.
>>
>> I assume all MMIO is part of the ish domain?
>>
>> If so, the series,
>> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
>
> I don't know if this barrier implies ordering all the way out to AXI on
> this HW, but I don't think that's a requirement of this function.

My understanding was that the barrier was explicitly to work around a 
bug in the bus fabric of the SoC, and hence the barrier very much does 
have to affect the transaction all the way out to AXI. Re-reading 
BCM2835-ARM-Peripherals.pdf section 1.3 "Peripheral access precautions 
for correct memory ordering" seems to confirm this.