linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: adjust GFP mask handling for coherent allocations

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 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:	Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:11:11 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	JBeulich@...ell.com
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, yinghai@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	tiwai@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: adjust GFP mask handling for coherent	 allocations

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:58:14 +0000
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com> wrote:

> >Well, in the first place, we don't need the #ifdef in Jan's patch. We
> >can always use DMA_BIT_MASK(24) for the fallback device.
> 
> But this one I don't agree with - the purpose of the patch is to not have
> a 24-bit (or 32-bit) mask here unconditionally: It would result in GFP_DMA
> to be forced on for the allocation (which the patch specifically eliminates),

If a driver doesn't want to GFP_DMA, it should set up the
dma_coherent_mask of the device and pass it. In fact, it should do. A
driver that uses the fallback device is broken.

Why can't you fix drivers that use the fallback instead of adding
another hack to the common place?
--
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/