netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: emac: emac gigabit ethernet controller driver

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: <2492153.N3Ga92jYtq@wuerfel>
Date:	Tue, 15 Dec 2015 22:55:27 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Gilad Avidov <gavidov@...eaurora.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, sdharia@...eaurora.org,
	shankerd@...eaurora.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	vikrams@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: emac: emac gigabit ethernet controller driver

On Tuesday 15 December 2015 15:09:23 Timur Tabi wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > If that's in the probe() called from it function, just use writel() everywhere,
> > a few extra microseconds won't kill the boot time. In general, if a user would
> > notice the difference, use the relaxed version and add a comment to explain
> > how you proved it's correct, otherwise stay with the default accessors.
> 
> What about adding a wmb() after the last writel()?  This driver does 
> that a lot.  Is that something we want to discourage?  I can understand 
> how we would want to make sure that the last write is posted before the 
> function exits.

Please explain in a comment specifically which race you are closing by
ensuring that the write gets posted. What does it race against?

As I said earlier, guaranteeing that a write gets posted does not mean
it has arrived at the device, we only get that behavior after a subsequent
read from the same device, but you don't need a wmb() between the
write and the read to guarantee this.

If you have an odd bus that does not follow those rules, it may in fact be
best to have a separate set of I/O accessors and not use readl/writel at all.

	Arnd
--
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