linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] crypto: caam - correct DMA address size for the i.MX8

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]

Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:52:39 -0700
From:   Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>
To:     Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>
Cc:     "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@....com>,
        Chris Spencer <christopher.spencer@....co.uk>,
        Aymen Sghaier <aymen.sghaier@....com>,
        Franck Lenormand <franck.lenormand@....com>,
        Cory Tusar <cory.tusar@....aero>,
        Chris Healy <cphealy@...il.com>,
        Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] crypto: caam - correct DMA address size for the i.MX8

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:24 PM Leonard Crestez
<leonard.crestez@....com> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/2019 7:04 PM, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > From: Chris Spencer <christopher.spencer@....co.uk>
> >
> > The i.MX8 is arm64, but its CAAM DMA address size is 32-bits.
>
> > +/*
> > + * On i.MX8 boards the arch is arm64 but the CAAM dma address size is
> > + * 32 bits on 8MQ and 36 bits on 8QM and 8QXP.
> > + * For 8QM and 8QXP there is a configurable field PS called pointer size
> > + * in the MCFGR register to switch between 32 and 64 (default 32)
> > + * But this register is only accessible by the SECO and is left to its
> > + * default value.
> > + * Here we set the CAAM dma address size to 32 bits for all i.MX8
> > + */
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC)
> > +#define caam_dma_addr_t u32
> > +#else
> > +#define caam_dma_addr_t dma_addr_t
> > +#endif
>
> Wait, doesn't this break Layerscape? Support for multiple SOC families
> can be enabled at the same time and it is something that we actually
> want to support.
>

Ugh, l think you are right. Will fix in next version.

Thanks,
Andrey Smirnov