netdev - Re: [PATCH 002/002] de2104x: support for systems lacking cache coherence

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:50:04 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	khc@...waw.pl
Cc:	risto.suominen@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 002/002] de2104x: support for systems lacking cache
 coherence

From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:45:46 +0100

> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
> 
> > The issue are descriptors that are _written_ by both the cpu
> > and the device.  That is the problematic case here.
> 
> Do you mean both CPU and 21040 write to the same descriptor at (nearly)
> the same time? Is it TX, RX or both?
> 
> I wonder, how would the patch help it?

The problem is when the chip is writing to one neighbouring descriptor
of one which the cpu is writing to at the same time.

> The patch seems to align the descriptors on cache line boundary. That
> IMHO means the corruption is caused by the 21040 writing to e.g. desc
> #0, CPU writing to desc #1, which causes the cache line write bringing
> the old desc #0 back.

Right.

> Is it possible to use uncached memory for coherent allocations (with no
> write side effects) on this machine?

Good question.
--
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