netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] ARM: mxs: add ocotp read function

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

Message-ID: <20110105201502.GK8638@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 5 Jan 2011 20:15:02 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc:	Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>, gerg@...pgear.com,
	B32542@...escale.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	s.hauer@...gutronix.de, bryan.wu@...onical.com, baruch@...s.co.il,
	w.sang@...gutronix.de, r64343@...escale.com,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>, eric@...rea.com,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, davem@...emloft.net,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, lw@...o-electronics.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] ARM: mxs: add ocotp read function

On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 07:44:18PM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> 'git show 534be1d5' explains how it works: cpu_relax() flushes buffered
> writes from _this_ CPU, so that other CPUs which are polling can make
> progress, which avoids this CPU getting stuck if there is an indirect
> dependency (no matter how convoluted) between what it's polling and which
> it wrote just before.
> 
> So cpu_relax() is *essential* in some polling loops, not a hint.
> 
> In principle that could happen for I/O polling, if (a) buffered memory
> writes are delayed by I/O read transactions, and (b) the device state we're
> waiting on depends on I/O yet to be done on another CPU, which could be
> polling memory first (e.g. a spinlock).
> 
> I doubt (a) in practice - but what about buses that block during I/O read?
> (I have a chip like that here, but it's ARMv4T.)

Let's be clear - ARMv5 and below generally are well ordered architectures
within the limits of caching.  There are cases where the write buffer
allows two writes to pass each other.  However, for IO we generally map
these - especially for ARMv4 and below - as 'uncacheable unbufferable'.
So on these, if the program says "read this location" the pipeline will
stall until the read has been issued - and if you use the result in the
next instruction, it will stall until the data is available.  So really,
it's not a problem here.

ARMv6 and above have a weakly ordered memory model with speculative
prefetching, so memory reads/writes can be completely unordered.  Device
accesses can pass memory accesses, but device accesses are always visible
in program order with respect to each other.

So, if you're spinning in a loop reading an IO device, all previous IO
accesses will be completed (in all ARM architectures) before the result
of your read is evaluated.

(But, let's make you squirm some more - mb() on ARMv6 and above may
equate to a CPU memory barrier _plus_ a few IO accesses to the external
L2 cache controller - which will be ordered wrt other IO accesses of
course.)
--
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