linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/17] RISC-V: Add include subdirectory

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: <CAK8P3a3LVGTrBxc+GD2gFHKg-YcZ40+z0SJAuFXadqLFDrE=DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Jun 2017 10:12:00 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Cc:     linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, albert@...ive.com,
        patches@...ups.riscv.org,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/17] RISC-V: Add include subdirectory

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com> wrote:
> This patch adds the include files for the RISC-V port.  These are mostly
> based on the score port, but there are a lot of arm64-based files as
> well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>

It might be better to split this up into several parts, as the patch
is longer than
most people are willing to review at once.

The uapi should definitely be a separate patch, as it includes the parts that
cannot be changed any more later. memory management (pgtable, mmu,
uaccess) would be another part to split out, and possibly all the atomics
in one separate patch (along with spinlocks and bitops).

> +
> +/* IO barriers.  These only fence on the IO bits because they're only required
> + * to order device access.  We're defining mmiowb because our AMO instructions
> + * (which are used to implement locks) don't specify ordering.  From Chapter 7
> + * of v2.2 of the user ISA:
> + * "The bits order accesses to one of the two address domains, memory or I/O,
> + * depending on which address domain the atomic instruction is accessing. No
> + * ordering constraint is implied to accesses to the other domain, and a FENCE
> + * instruction should be used to order across both domains."
> + */
> +
> +#define __iormb()      __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence i,io" : : : "memory");
> +#define __iowmb()      __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence io,o" : : : "memory");
> +
> +#define mmiowb()       __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence io,io" : : : "memory");
> +
> +/*
> + * Relaxed I/O memory access primitives. These follow the Device memory
> + * ordering rules but do not guarantee any ordering relative to Normal memory
> + * accesses.
> + */
> +#define readb_relaxed(c)       ({ u8  __r = __raw_readb(c); __r; })
> +#define readw_relaxed(c)       ({ u16 __r = le16_to_cpu((__force __le16)__raw_readw(c)); __r; })
> +#define readl_relaxed(c)       ({ u32 __r = le32_to_cpu((__force __le32)__raw_readl(c)); __r; })
> +#define readq_relaxed(c)       ({ u64 __r = le64_to_cpu((__force __le64)__raw_readq(c)); __r; })
> +
> +#define writeb_relaxed(v,c)    ((void)__raw_writeb((v),(c)))
> +#define writew_relaxed(v,c)    ((void)__raw_writew((__force u16)cpu_to_le16(v),(c)))
> +#define writel_relaxed(v,c)    ((void)__raw_writel((__force u32)cpu_to_le32(v),(c)))
> +#define writeq_relaxed(v,c)    ((void)__raw_writeq((__force u64)cpu_to_le64(v),(c)))
> +
> +/*
> + * I/O memory access primitives. Reads are ordered relative to any
> + * following Normal memory access. Writes are ordered relative to any prior
> + * Normal memory access.
> + */
> +#define readb(c)               ({ u8  __v = readb_relaxed(c); __iormb(); __v; })
> +#define readw(c)               ({ u16 __v = readw_relaxed(c); __iormb(); __v; })
> +#define readl(c)               ({ u32 __v = readl_relaxed(c); __iormb(); __v; })
> +#define readq(c)               ({ u64 __v = readq_relaxed(c); __iormb(); __v; })
> +
> +#define writeb(v,c)            ({ __iowmb(); writeb_relaxed((v),(c)); })
> +#define writew(v,c)            ({ __iowmb(); writew_relaxed((v),(c)); })
> +#define writel(v,c)            ({ __iowmb(); writel_relaxed((v),(c)); })
> +#define writeq(v,c)            ({ __iowmb(); writeq_relaxed((v),(c)); })
> +
> +#include <asm-generic/io.h>

These do not yet contain all the changes we discussed: the relaxed operations
don't seem to be ordered against one another and the regular accessors
are not ordered against DMA.

     Arnd