linux-kernel - Re: 3.14-mw regression: rtl8169 WARNING: DMA-API: exceeded 7 overlapping mappings of pfn 55ebe

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: <CAPcyv4hrVBLghSWB=vRoe_iAcWzRL5ZiN6SXrLmCbHx++hixBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Feb 2014 06:56:36 -0800
From:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: 3.14-mw regression: rtl8169 WARNING: DMA-API: exceeded 7
 overlapping mappings of pfn 55ebe

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 18:07 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>
>> The overlap granularity is too large.  Multiple dma_map_single
>> mappings are allowed to a given page as long as they don't collide on
>> the same cache line.
>>
>
> I am not sure why you try number of mappings of a page.

For this debug facility I am tracking whether dma has completed by
making sure there are no active dma_map entries in the address range
of a page being cow'd.

> Try launching 100 concurrent netperf -t TCP_SENFILE
>
> Same page might be mapped more than 100 times, more than 10000 times in
> some cases.
>

Aren't these mapping serialized by the device to some extent?
Although multi-queue / multi-device would even defeat that...

Hmm, then I think at a minimum the activity tracking needs to be
constrained to overlapping DMA_FROM_DEVICE or DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL
mappings.  However, I am still operating on the assumption that some
architectures (especially non-io-coherent or dmabounce architectures)
expect a dma mapping to reflect exclusive ownership of the buffer.
>From the conversation I had with Russell, back in the day [1]:

"When we get to the second async_xor(), as we haven't started to run any
of these operations, the source and destination buffers are still mapped.
However, we ignore that and call dma_map_page() on them again - this is
illegal because the CPU does not own these buffers."

It might be the case that we can't have a general overlap detection
facility as it will flag stable use cases that nonetheless violate the
exclusivity expectation.

--
Dan

[1]: http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=129389649101566&w=2
--
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/