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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fbee07c9-ec3b-d443-2132-7208dae38539@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 May 2019 15:10:09 +0800
From:   Heyi Guo <guoheyi@...wei.com>
To:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>,
        wanghaibin 00208455 <wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Why do we mark vpending table as non-shareable in GICR_VPENDBASER?

Hi Marc,

We can see in its_vpe_schedule() the shareability bits of GICR_VPENDBASER are set as non-shareable, But we set physical PENDBASER as inner-shareable. Is there any special reason for doing this? If it is because the vpending table is GICR specific, why don't we do the same for physical pending table?

We have not seen function issue with this setting, but a special detector in our hardware warns us that there are non-shareable requests sent out while some inner shareable cache entries still present in the cache, and it may cause data inconsistent.

Thanks,

Heyi


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ