netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86_64, sfc: 128-bit memory-mapped I/O

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: <5034447C.3020203@zytor.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:31:24 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86_64, sfc: 128-bit memory-mapped I/O

On 08/21/2012 07:10 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> Yes, you have to make sure you properly enforce the necessary ordering
>> requirements manually (I think you can do that with sfence).
> 
> We did put an sfence after the writes to each register.  But some
> systems only want to combine writes that cover an entire cache line, and
> the writes covering a 128-bit register get broken back up into multiple
> writes at the PCIe level.  And on some systems these are sent in
> decreasing address order, which breaks the rules for writing to
> TX_DESC_UPD.
> 
> To avoid this we'd have to put an sfence in between the writes to a
> register, leaving us back where we started.
> 

You realize the same applies to 128-bit writes, right?  Some cores
and/or systems will break them up.

	-hpa



--
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