linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] media: usb: pwc: Don't use coherent DMA buffers for ISO transfer

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: <5b84e0e4f1b0cbfd3cf3e641c41f9fc50a74e6bf.camel@collabora.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:55:43 -0300
From:   Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...labora.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc:     "Matwey V. Kornilov" <matwey.kornilov@...il.com>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
        Mike Isely <isely@...ox.com>,
        Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@...il.com>,
        Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
        keiichiw@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] media: usb: pwc: Don't use coherent DMA buffers
 for ISO transfer

Alan, Laurent:

On Fri, 2018-08-10 at 10:27 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2018, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> 
> > > > Aren't you're missing a dma_sync_single_for_device() call before
> > > > submitting the URB ? IIRC that's required for correct operation of the DMA
> > > > mapping API on some platforms, depending on the cache architecture. The
> > > > additional sync can affect performances, so it would be useful to re-run
> > > > the perf test.
> > > 
> > > This was already discussed:
> > > 
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/23/1051
> > > 
> > > I rely on Alan's reply:
> > > 
> > > > According to Documentation/DMA-API-HOWTO.txt, the CPU should not write
> > > > to a DMA_FROM_DEVICE-mapped area, so dma_sync_single_for_device() is
> > > > not needed.
> > 
> > I fully agree that the CPU should not write to the buffer. However, I think 
> > the sync call is still needed. It's been a long time since I touched this 
> > area, but IIRC, some cache architectures (VIVT ?) require both cache clean 
> > before the transfer and cache invalidation after the transfer. On platforms 
> > where no cache management operation is needed before the transfer in the 
> > DMA_FROM_DEVICE direction, the dma_sync_*_for_device() calls should be no-ops 
> > (and if they're not, it's a bug of the DMA mapping implementation).
> 
> In general, I agree that the cache has to be clean before a transfer
> starts.  This means some sort of mapping operation (like
> dma_sync_*_for-device) is indeed required at some point between the
> allocation and the first transfer.
> 
> For subsequent transfers, however, the cache is already clean and it
> will remain clean because the CPU will not do any writes to the buffer.
> (Note: clean != empty.  Rather, clean == !dirty.)  Therefore transfers
> following the first should not need any dma_sync_*_for_device.
> 
> If you don't accept this reasoning then you should ask the people who 
> wrote DMA-API-HOWTO.txt.  They certainly will know more about this 
> issue than I do.
> 

Can either of you ack or nack this change? I'd like to see this merged,
or either re-worked, so we can merge it.

Thanks!
Eze