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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 02 May 2007 11:04:03 -0500
From:	Scott Wood <>
To:	Segher Boessenkool <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gianfar: Add I/O barriers when touching buffer descriptor

Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> The hardware must not see that is given ownership of a buffer until it is
>> completely written, and when the driver receives ownership of a buffer,
>> it must ensure that any other reads to the buffer reflect its final
>> state.  Thus, I/O barriers are added where required.
>> Without this patch, I have observed GCC reordering the setting of
>> bdp->length and bdp->status in gfar_new_skb.
> The :::"memory" in the barriers you used prevent GCC
> from reordering accesses around the barriers.

Sure... it was just an example to point out that it's actually 
happening, rather than a theoretical concern.

> AFAICS you need stronger barriers though; {w,r,}mb(),
> to prevent _any_ reordering of those memory accesses,
> not just the compiler-generated ones.

My impression was that the eieio used by iobarrier would be sufficient 
for that, as we're not trying to synchronize between accesses to 
different types of memory.  Is sync really required here?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists