| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 02:21:51 +0900
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To: ijc@...lion.org.uk
Cc: fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, jeremy@...p.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, beckyb@...nel.crashing.org,
okir@...e.de, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Where do we stand with the Xen patches?
On Thu, 21 May 2009 12:45:35 +0100
Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk> wrote:
> > A necessary interface? Sorry, I don't buy it. It's necessary for
> > only Xen. And it's not fit well for swiotlb and the architecture
> > abstraction.
>
> I said "necessary interface to enable a particular use-case". Xen is a
> valid use case -- I appreciate that you personally may have no interest
> in it but plenty of people do and plenty of people would like to see it
> working in the mainline kernels.
>
> In terms of clean abstraction this is a architecture hook to allow
> mappings to be forced through the swiotlb. It is essentially a more
> flexible extension to the existing swiotlb_force flag, in fact
> swiotlb_force_mapping() might even be a better name for it.
>
> IMHO, the benefits here (working Xen domain 0 plus PCI passthrough to
> guest domains) are well worth the costs.
All I care about is a clean design; an wrong design will hurt us.
> > > If there was a cleaner way to achieve the same result we would of course
> > > go with that. I don't think duplicating swiotlb.c, as has been suggested
> > > as the alternative, just for that one hook point makes sense.
> >
> > One hook? You need to reread swiotlb.c. There are more. All should go.
>
> I meant that swiotlb_range_needs_mapping is the single contentious hook
> as far as I can tell. It is the only one which you appear to be
> disputing the very existence of (irrespective of whether it uses __weak
> or is moved into asm/dma-mapping.h). The other existing __weak hooks are
> useful to other users too and all can, AFAICT, be moved into
> asm/dma-mapping.h.
>
> You have already dealt with moving swiotlb_address_needs_mapping and I
> am currently looking into the the phys_to_bus and bus_to_phys ones. That
> just leaves the alloc functions, which are next on my list after
> phys_to_bus and bus_to_phys. Will finishing up those patches resolve
> most of your objections are do you have others?
The latest your patch is more hacky than the current code. You just
move the ugly hacks for dom0 from lib/swiotlb.c to somewhere else.
I guess that the only way to keep the Xen-specific stuff in Xen's land
is something like this. Then xen/pci-swiotlb.c implements its own
map/unmap functions without messing up the generic code.
I guess that do_map_single's io_tlb_daddr argument is pointless for
Xen since swiotlb doesn't work if iotlb buffer is not physically
continuous (you will see data corruption with some device drivers).
diff --git a/include/linux/swiotlb.h b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
index cb1a663..e1c40ae 100644
--- a/include/linux/swiotlb.h
+++ b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
@@ -21,8 +21,17 @@ struct scatterlist;
*/
#define IO_TLB_SHIFT 11
-extern void
-swiotlb_init(void);
+extern void swiotlb_init(void);
+extern void swiotlb_register_io_tlb(void *);
+
+extern void *do_map_single(struct device *hwdev, dma_addr_t io_tlb_daddr,
+ phys_addr_t phys, size_t size,
+ enum dma_data_direction dir);
+extern void do_unmap_single(struct device *hwdev, char *dma_addr, size_t size,
+ enum dma_data_direction dir);
+
+extern void sync_single(struct device *hwdev, char *dma_addr, size_t size,
+ int dir, int target);
extern void *swiotlb_alloc_boot(size_t bytes, unsigned long nslabs);
extern void *swiotlb_alloc(unsigned order, unsigned long nslabs);
diff --git a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c
index cec5f62..6efa8cc 100644
--- a/lib/swiotlb.c
+++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
@@ -176,24 +176,16 @@ static void swiotlb_print_info(unsigned long bytes)
* Statically reserve bounce buffer space and initialize bounce buffer data
* structures for the software IO TLB used to implement the DMA API.
*/
-void __init
-swiotlb_init_with_default_size(size_t default_size)
+void __init swiotlb_register_iotlb(void *iotlb)
{
unsigned long i, bytes;
- if (!io_tlb_nslabs) {
- io_tlb_nslabs = (default_size >> IO_TLB_SHIFT);
- io_tlb_nslabs = ALIGN(io_tlb_nslabs, IO_TLB_SEGSIZE);
- }
-
bytes = io_tlb_nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT;
/*
* Get IO TLB memory from the low pages
*/
- io_tlb_start = swiotlb_alloc_boot(bytes, io_tlb_nslabs);
- if (!io_tlb_start)
- panic("Cannot allocate SWIOTLB buffer");
+ io_tlb_start = iotlb;
io_tlb_end = io_tlb_start + bytes;
/*
@@ -207,21 +199,30 @@ swiotlb_init_with_default_size(size_t default_size)
io_tlb_index = 0;
io_tlb_orig_addr = alloc_bootmem(io_tlb_nslabs * sizeof(phys_addr_t));
- /*
- * Get the overflow emergency buffer
- */
- io_tlb_overflow_buffer = swiotlb_alloc_boot(io_tlb_overflow,
- io_tlb_overflow >> IO_TLB_SHIFT);
- if (!io_tlb_overflow_buffer)
- panic("Cannot allocate SWIOTLB overflow buffer!\n");
-
swiotlb_print_info(bytes);
}
void __init
swiotlb_init(void)
{
- swiotlb_init_with_default_size(64 * (1<<20)); /* default to 64MB */
+ size_t default_size = 64 * (1 << 20); /* default to 64MB */
+ void *iotlb;
+
+ if (!io_tlb_nslabs) {
+ io_tlb_nslabs = (default_size >> IO_TLB_SHIFT);
+ io_tlb_nslabs = ALIGN(io_tlb_nslabs, IO_TLB_SEGSIZE);
+ }
+
+ iotlb = swiotlb_alloc_boot(io_tlb_nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT,
+ io_tlb_nslabs);
+ BUG_ON(!iotlb);
+
+ io_tlb_overflow_buffer = swiotlb_alloc_boot(io_tlb_overflow,
+ io_tlb_overflow >> IO_TLB_SHIFT);
+ if (!io_tlb_overflow_buffer)
+ panic("Cannot allocate SWIOTLB overflow buffer!\n");
+
+ swiotlb_register_iotlb(iotlb);
}
/*
@@ -378,8 +379,9 @@ static void swiotlb_bounce(phys_addr_t phys, char *dma_addr, size_t size,
/*
* Allocates bounce buffer and returns its kernel virtual address.
*/
-static void *
-map_single(struct device *hwdev, phys_addr_t phys, size_t size, int dir)
+void *do_map_single(struct device *hwdev, dma_addr_t io_tlb_daddr,
+ phys_addr_t phys, size_t size,
+ enum dma_data_direction dir)
{
unsigned long flags;
char *dma_addr;
@@ -391,7 +393,7 @@ map_single(struct device *hwdev, phys_addr_t phys, size_t size, int dir)
unsigned long max_slots;
mask = dma_get_seg_boundary(hwdev);
- start_dma_addr = swiotlb_virt_to_bus(hwdev, io_tlb_start) & mask;
+ start_dma_addr = io_tlb_daddr & mask;
offset_slots = ALIGN(start_dma_addr, 1 << IO_TLB_SHIFT) >> IO_TLB_SHIFT;
@@ -481,11 +483,18 @@ found:
return dma_addr;
}
+static void *map_single(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t phys, size_t size,
+ enum dma_data_direction dir)
+{
+ return do_map_single(dev, swiotlb_virt_to_bus(dev, io_tlb_start),
+ phys, size, dir);
+}
+
/*
* dma_addr is the kernel virtual address of the bounce buffer to unmap.
*/
-static void
-do_unmap_single(struct device *hwdev, char *dma_addr, size_t size, int dir)
+void do_unmap_single(struct device *hwdev, char *dma_addr, size_t size,
+ enum dma_data_direction dir)
{
unsigned long flags;
int i, count, nslots = ALIGN(size, 1 << IO_TLB_SHIFT) >> IO_TLB_SHIFT;
@@ -524,7 +533,7 @@ do_unmap_single(struct device *hwdev, char *dma_addr, size_t size, int dir)
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&io_tlb_lock, flags);
}
-static void
+void
sync_single(struct device *hwdev, char *dma_addr, size_t size,
int dir, int target)
{
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists