[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1424409761.27448.32.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:22:41 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Sreekanth Reddy <Sreekanth.Reddy@...gotech.com>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: Concerns about "mpt2sas: Added Reply Descriptor Post Queue
(RDPQ) Array support"
On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 16:06 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Note that even on powerpc platforms where it would work because we
> maintain both 32-bit and 64-bit bypass windows in the device address
> space simultaneously, you will leak iommu entries unless you also switch
> back to 32-bit when freeing the 32-bit mappings... (and you would
> probably crash if you tried to free a 64-bit mapping while in 32-bit
> mode).
>
> The iommu APIs weren't designed with that "switching mask" facility in
> mind...
Looking a bit more closely, you basically do
- set_dma_mask(64-bit)
- set_consistent_dma_mask(32-bit)
Now, I don't know how x86 will react to the conflicting masks, but on
ppc64, I'm pretty sure the second one will barf. IE, the first one will
establish a set of direct mapping ops which give you a bypass of the
iommu to all of memory. The second one will then do a
dma_supported(mask) call which will hit the direct ops, and they will
fail since a 32-bit mask cannot address the bypass completely.
Are architectures really required to support such mismatching dma_mask
and consistent_dma_mask ? what a bloody trainwreck ... :-(
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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