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:	Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:27:48 -0700
From:	David Woodhouse <>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <>
	Russell King - ARM Linux <>,
	"" <>,
	"Koul, Vinod" <>,
	"Krogerus, Heikki" <>,
	Andy Shevchenko <>,
	Viresh Kumar <>,
	Kukjin Kim <>,
	Linus Walleij <>,,,
	Ben Dooks <>,
	Peter Pearse <>,
	Dan Williams <>,
	Alessandro Rubini <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] DMAENGINE: driver for the ARM PL080/PL081

On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 15:11 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 10 March 2014 06:56:30 David Woodhouse wrote:
> > It is not impossible for the DMA controller to "delegate" transactions
> > so that (to the IOMMU) they appear to come from the individual slave
> > device rather than from itself.
> > 
> > The Intel IOMMU has now gained support for DMA mapping for devices
> > enumerated by ACPI — essentially the ACPI "DMAR" table just has a lookup
> > table of ACPI device paths, and tells us the PCI bus/devfn that their
> > DMA transactions will *appear* to be from.
> This makes a lot of sense for standalone DMA masters enumerated by ACPI,
> but I fail to see what the purpose of that would be when the DMA
> is delegated to a separate DMA engine devices. Do you have an idea?
> It sounds to me that they are trying to isolate the DMA masters
> because the slave driver is not trusted for some reason, yet the
> DMA engine driver that does the DMA is trusted.

I don't really know; I'm just trying to make sense of what I'm seeing on
the hardware.

Perhaps it's just been done on the general principle that devices' DMA
should be separable. If you have different devices, you should be able
to distinguish between them and set up mappings for them separately.

> > Of course, it's also possible that all these BIOSes are broken and they
> > *should* just list the DMA controller itself, instead of all the slave
> > devices. But while I'm always quick to jump to the conclusion that it's
> > the BIOS at fault, that doesn't necessarily seem likely here...
> It would be good to verify this anyway. 

Right. I'm working on that.

> There are multiple reasons why
> we have to pass the dmaengine device to the dma-mapping API at the moment
> rather than the slave device, but in essence it comes down to the engine
> being the one that is the master on its parent bus. A trivial example
> where it goes wrong would be the slave living on a 32-bit noncoherent bus
> and the master living on a 64-bit coherent bus.

That's true in the general case, certainly. But in this case we're
basically just talking about different functions of a multifunction
device. It may turn out that we need the *flexibility* to specify which
device shall be used for DMA mappings for a given channel, even if in
*most* cases it ends up being the DMA controller itself.


Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5745 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists