netdev - Re: [PATCH] gianfar: Add I/O barriers when touching buffer descriptor ownership.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <4334c860f893dbc537a51999cea25532@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:	Wed, 2 May 2007 20:05:43 +0200
From:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, jgarzik@...ox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gianfar: Add I/O barriers when touching buffer descriptor ownership.

>> 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?

For accesses to main system memory, eieio only orders
writes, not reads, so iobarrier_r() doesn't do what
you want; and iobarrier_w() isn't meant to be used for
main memory access ordering either.

Also, it is better to not use powerpc-specific interfaces
in a device driver if you don't have a strong reason to.

Segher

-
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