linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 01/18] arm: make SWIOTLB available

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131029180105.GR16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:01:05 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
Cc:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Ian.Campbell@...rix.com,
	will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/18] arm: make SWIOTLB available

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 05:24:50PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > This looks like a hack.  Either we want to use the streaming mask or
> > the coherent mask as appropriate for the caller.  That should be a choice
> > the caller makes, not the implementation of this behind the callers back.
> 
> How should I choose?
> Admittedly this is a workaround because some drivers (including Calxeda
> xgmac) don't set the dma_mask when they should:
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=138082570519601&w=2
> 
> I am happy to reduce this to:
> 
> if (dev->dma_mask)
>     mask = *dev->dma_mask;
> 
> even though it means that xgmac & co won't be dma_capable.

Well, if xgmac (there's two in the kernel tree so I'm not sure which
you're referring to) is using DMA of any kind, it really ought to be
setting a DMA mask via the standard functions - in todays kernel,
that is dma_set_mask() for the streaming mask and dma_set_coherent_mask()
for the coherent mask.  The appropriate mask which the driver is aware
of for the hardware should be set here.

In the case that a driver needs to call both, and the kernel has my
patch set applied, dma_set_mask_and_coherent() can be used to set both
at the same time.

dma_set_mask() (and dma_set_mask_and_coherent) will fail if storage for
the DMA mask has not been allocated previously - iow, if the dev->dma_mask
pointer is NULL.  The allocation of this storage is the responsibility
of the struct device creator, and the struct device creator should
initialise the DMA masks to a sensible default for the type of bus.

I provide one last call in my patch set - a method that drivers can
coerce the DMA mask to whatever they desire irrespective of whether
the DMA mask allocation has been setup.  This is provided as a way to
mark the drivers which are doing this and to ensure that drivers do
this in a safe manner - we've had drivers setting it to static storage
in module space if it isn't previously set, which is a problem if the
module ever gets unloaded.

So... what I'm saying is please fix xgmac to use the DMA API properly
rather than working around such problems. :)
--
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/