linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 03/13] PCI/P2PDMA: Add PCI p2pmem DMA mappings to adjust the bus offset

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]

Date:   Fri, 21 Sep 2018 15:00:21 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/13] PCI/P2PDMA: Add PCI p2pmem DMA mappings to
 adjust the bus offset

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 12:13:21PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 2018-09-21 10:48 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> I think the use of "map" in this context is slightly confusing because the
> >> general expectation is that map/unmap must be balanced.
> 
> Yeah, Jason said the same thing, but having an empty unmap function
> seems wasteful and Christoph said to just remove it. My opinion is that
> it's not that big an issue one way or another -- if we have to add an
> unmap later it's not really that hard.
> 
> >> If you keep "map", maybe add a sentence or two about why there's no
> >> corresponding unmap?
> 
> Will do.
> 
> > Another wrinkle is that "map" usually takes an A and gives you back a
> > B.  Now the caller has both A and B and both are still valid.
> > Here we pass in an SGL and the SGL is transformed, so the caller only
> > has B and A has been destroyed, i.e., the SGL can no longer be used as
> > it was before, and there's no way to get A back.
> 
> I wouldn't say that. Our map_sg function is doing the same thing
> dma_map_sg is: it sets the DMA address and length in the scatter list.
> So B is still A just with other fields set. If the caller wanted to map
> this SG in a different way they can still do so and the new DMA
> address/length would override the old values. (Normally, you'd want to
> unmap before doing something like that, but seeing our unmap is an empty
> operation, we wouldn't have to do that.)

Ok.  I was assuming s->dma_address would have been already set before
the call and would be overwritten by pci_p2pmem_map_sg().  But I guess
that's not the case -- sounds like s->dma_address is undefined before
the call.

Bjorn