linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: dw_mmc: use resource_size

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: <CAHp75VfnD=MPigeTdo8YKPTs4zZN+XcSiMBZkma3ibaT4DEZiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 2015 18:17:32 +0200
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
	"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: dw_mmc: use resource_size_t to store physical address

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 November 2015 17:29:19 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>
>> I understand most of the things here, what I don't is how a platform
>> is supposed to work if you have the following:
>> a) HW, that uses register space let's say higher than 32-bit;
>> b) DMA engine, which should provide a DMA capability for above HW block;
>> c) dma_addr_t which does not cover the HW register space.
>
> On this platform, the current code is obviously broken, because the pointer
> is 32-bit wide and cannot reach the registers. I assume you agree on that
> part.

Yes.

> With my patch, the 64-bit resource_size_t in dw_mci helps get the
> correct FIFO address to this line:
>
>         cfg.dst_addr = host->phy_regs + fifo_offset;
>
> There, it remains broken because of the dma_addr_t being too short, and
> we also need Linus' patch from https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/26/120 in
> addition to mine.

Wow, never applied.

>
>
>> For me it clearly looks like a platform (HW / SW) configuration issue.
>
> I think some people have argued in the past that we should always use
> the same type for dma_addr_t, resource_size_t and phys_addr_t. That
> would certainly fix the problem you describe as well. In practice,
> everyone has that already, and my patch by itself fixes all the
> cases where the FIFO is at a high address and dma_addr_t is already
> 64-bit wide.

Let me summarize.

We have to have classification by address space
1) physical
2) virtual

Therefore
resource_addr_t must be equal to phys_addr_t since it may carry any
possible physical address.

dma_addr_t is a physical address wrt DMA mask.

Correct?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
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/