linux-kernel - RE: IB on s390 broken with commit 99db94940 "IB/core: Remove ib_device.dma

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 19:53:10 +0000
From:   Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>,
        "sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:     "gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com" <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: IB on s390 broken with commit 99db94940 "IB/core: Remove
 ib_device.dma_device"

Hi Bart,

I am using Linux-block tree testing on x86_64.
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux-block.git

Commit ac1820fb286b552b6885d40ab34f1e59b815f1f1 introduced dma_ops related change that you made.
With this change I am hitting below error in mlx5_ib driver.
"DMAR: Allocating domain for mlx5_0 failed"

I revert back to commit edccb59429657b09806146339e2b27594c1d1da0.
With revert I do not hit the error.

I do not have cycles to debug/fix this currently. Do you think this might be related to your change?

Parav

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-rdma-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-rdma-
> owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Bart Van Assche
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 10:50 AM
> To: sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
> Cc: gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> rdma@...r.kernel.org; dledford@...hat.com
> Subject: Re: IB on s390 broken with commit 99db94940 "IB/core: Remove
> ib_device.dma_device"
> 
> On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 09:53 +0100, Sebastian Ott wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 21:17 +0100, Sebastian Ott wrote:
> > > > commit 99db94940 "IB/core: Remove ib_device.dma_device"
> > > > breaks infiniband on s390 (and I think also other archs that do
> > > > something like to_pci_dev(dev) in one of their dma_ops callbacks).
> > > >
> > > > With this commit you use the dma_ops of the device that called
> > > > ib_register_device but you call e.g. dma_map with ib_device->dev
> > > > as an argument.
> > > >
> > > > S390's (pci specific) dma_map uses to_pci_dev(dev) to look into
> > > > the pci device (and its arch specific data) and oopses.
> > > >
> > > > Calling dma_map with ib_device->dev.parent would work but then it
> > > > wouldn't make sense to copy dma_ops and mask from
> > > > ib_device->dev.parent to ib_device->dev..
> > >
> > > How about something like the untested patch below?
> >
> > It works but it doesn't feel right (why should all pci devices have
> > this duplicated data).
> >
> > Frankly I don't get the usecase of infiniband (sometimes) using
> > device->dev.dma_ops instead of parent->dma_ops. Also that these values
> > device->are
> > selectively copied from the parent looks weird (opposed to all or nothing).
> >
> > What about reintroducing dma_device (as an infiniband internal) and
> > set it to &ib_device->dev if you have to and to parent in all other cases?
> 
> Hello Sebastian,
> 
> There are three kinds of RDMA drivers:
> - RDMA drivers that always use DMA for transferring data between memory
> and
>   HCA (e.g. mlx4, mlx5, ...). These drivers make the ULP call the PCI DMA
>   mapping functions directly.
> - RDMA drivers that never use DMA directly but use another driver for
>   transferring data (e.g. rdma_rxe). This driver makes the ULP store virtual
>   addresses in .dma_address.
> - RDMA drivers that decide whether to use PIO or DMA depending on e.g.
> the
>   QP type and the amount of data to be transferred (qib, hfi1). These drivers
>   also make the ULP store virtual addresses in .dma_address and decide
>   internally whether or not to invoke the PCI DMA mapping functions.
> 
> This is why a custom DMA mapping API was introduced in the RDMA
> subsystem.
> Until recently the Linux RDMA subsystem not only had its own DMA mapping
> operations but also its own template for DMA mapping operations (struct
> ib_dma_mapping_ops). This is not only confusing but also led to a multitude
> of incomplete and RDMA driver DMA mapping operations of which
> additionally the behavior is slightly different of other DMA mapping
> operations. That's why we want to evolve towards a single DMA mapping
> API. Reintroducing the dma_device pointer in struct ib_device would make it
> impossible to use the standard DMA mapping API for RDMA devices.
> 
> Bart.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the
> body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html