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: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:02:46 +0200 From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl> To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org, linux@....linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Subject: Re: ARM: 2.6.3[45] PCI regression (IXP4xx and PXA?) FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> writes: > Lots of drivers call dma_set_coherent_mask with 64bit mask and then > call it with 32bit mask if 64bit mask fails. Which seems strange to me. If the driver asks for 64-bit mask and the system can only give it 32-bits, why return an error? Every 32-bit address is also 64-bit, with the most significant bits simply cleared. It makes sense the other way around, if the device wants e.g. 24-bit mask (ISA or something) but the OS doesn't have a memory pool smaller than e.g. 4 GB then returning with error is ok. Same with IXP4xx (and perhaps PXA) - the device wants 32 bits and it's fine, even if the mask is set to 28 bits since the CPU can't let PCI access more. If the device wants to know if it should issue DACs or something like that, sure - just check the current masks (effective). -- Krzysztof Halasa -- 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