netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations

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: <CA+55aFyBVRHk6ZcWxEPoUPRmFYyW6yihbi26vS-SAKey0nv9yA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:28:20 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Ben Hutchings
<bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:
>
> Right, I think it's been made pretty clear that it's going to be
> dependent on more than just architecture.

Well, it's entirely possible that the 128-bit case will work correctly
on all x86-64 hardware out there on PCIe.

I just can't guarantee it, because we certainly have had issues with
hw doing odd things before. But maybe PCIe really is well-specified
enough, and maybe nobody has done a odd PCIe bridges, and maybe every
time some 128-bit access is split, the bus in question still always
remembers the original 128-bit size in the transaction. It's not at
all impossible. I just wouldn't *guarantee* it.

And to some degree, for high-end server-only hardware in particular,
it really *is* acceptable to say "If you have odd hardware, odd things
will happen". So for this particular driver, maybe the right approach
is simply to say "we require that your fabric works right". And see if
anybody ever complains.

The 100ns may be worth those kinds of "you'd better not have old/crap
hardware" decisions. It's not acceptable for some drivers (a driver
for some consumer ATA chip might not want to make that kind of choice,
and say "whatever, we'll be really conservative), but "Quod licet
Jovi, non licet bovi".

The fact that something might not be *guaranteed* to always work
doesn't necessarily mean that it is always the wrong thing to do..

              Linus
--
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