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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 15:40:20 -0500 From: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com> To: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org> CC: jgarzik@...ox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gianfar: Add I/O barriers when touching buffer descriptor ownership. Kumar Gala wrote: > On May 2, 2007, at 3:12 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> wmb() is a sync, smp_wmb() is an eieio. Andy told me he would not >> accept a sync in those spots. > > > Sorry, was looking at the iobarrier code. > >> And the driver is already ppc-specific; it uses in/out_be32. > > > True, but its hidden behind the gfar_read/write accessors. > > Your change is a bit more blatant. Well, Segher doesn't want me to use iobarrier (because it's not I/O). Andy doesn't want me to use wmb() (because it's sync). I don't think something like gfar_wmb() would be appropriate. So the remaining options are either eieio(), or a new non-arch-specific, non-driver-specific mem_wmb() (or whatever). While I like the latter option, I don't think this bugfix should have to wait for it. -Scott - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists