linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7u1 26/31] x86: Don't enable swiotlb if there is not enough ram for it

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]

Message-ID: <20130109131217.GA18395@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 Jan 2013 08:12:17 -0500
From:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>,
	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7u1 26/31] x86: Don't enable swiotlb if there is not
 enough ram for it

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 04:58:14PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 03:40:11PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> >> >> I meant we should detect failure to allocate bounce buffers in in
> >> >> swiotlb_init() instead of panicing.
> >> >>
> >> >> I meant swiotlb_map_single() should either panic or simply fail.
> >> >>
> >> >> If I have read lib/swiotlb.c correctly the only place we allocate a
> >> >> bounce buffer is in swiotlb_map_single.  If there are more places we can
> >> >> allocate bounce buffers those need to be handled as well.
> >> >
> >> > ok, will give it a try.
> >> 
> >> please check if you are ok with attached.
> >> 
> >> looks like it need more change of lines.
> >
> > The swiotlb_full check I don't believe is neccessary. You won't ever get
> > to that unless swiotlb_map_page has at least provided a bounce buffer.
> > And if the swiotlb_map_page does not have a bounce buffer it will exit
> > with:
> >
> > +       if (no_iotlb_memory)                                                    
> > +               return SWIOTLB_MAP_ERROR;                                       
> > +                 
> >
> > which is dangerous. That is b/c there are drivers that don't use the
> > dma_mapping_error check (so check the bus address after calling
> > pci_map_*). This means they would try to do DMA on 0xffffffff (yikes!).
> >
> > That is reason the failback (v_overflow_buffer) is still in
> > usage - b/c we have drivers that might just do this and this is the last
> > resort for them. And until those drivers are fixed - we _need_ this
> > fallback to work.
> 
> So instead we need to say?
> 
> +       if (no_iotlb_memory)                                                    
> +               panic("Cannot allocate SWIOTLB buffer");


"Did not allocate SWIOTLB buffer earlier and can't now provide you with the
DMA bounce buffer."

> +                 
> 
> Which is just making the panic a little later than it used to be and
> seems completely reasonable.

Yes. When those drivers are all fixed and then we can remove that duct-tape.
--
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/