linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] arm64: Introduce raw_{d,i}cache_line

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]

Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:00:07 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        catalin.marinas@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
        andre.przywara@....com, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] arm64: Introduce raw_{d,i}cache_line_size

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:10:30PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On systems with mismatched i/d cache min line sizes, we need to use
> the smallest size possible across all CPUs. This will be done by fetching
> the system wide safe value from CPU feature infrastructure.
> However the some special users(e.g kexec, hibernate) would need the line
> size on the CPU (rather than the system wide), when the system wide
> feature may not be accessible. Provide another helper which will fetch
> cache line size on the current CPU.

Why are these users "special"? Using a smaller line size shouldn't affect
correctness, and I don't see kexec and hibernate as being performance
critical in their cache maintenance.

Will