linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 17/21] drivers: Remove explicit invocations of mmiowb()

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: <CAHk-=wj6ymuXDS1Azr4fFJC7Z77zOfN5vaKZjDzUA4izvULWXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Apr 2019 05:50:32 -1000
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/21] drivers: Remove explicit invocations of mmiowb()

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:01 AM Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
>
> mmiowb() is now implied by spin_unlock() on architectures that require
> it, so there is no reason to call it from driver code. This patch was
> generated using coccinelle:
>
>         @mmiowb@
>         @@
>         - mmiowb();

So I love the patch series, and think we should just do it, but I do
wonder if some of the drivers involved end up relying on memory
ordering things (store_release -> load_aquire) and IO ordering rather
than using locking...

Wouldn't such use now be broken on ia64 SN platforms? Do we care?

So it might be worth noting that a lot of the mmiowb()s here weren't
paired with spin_unlock?

                    Linus