linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] dma-direct: refine dma_direct

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, 28 Sep 2018 17:46:26 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] dma-direct: refine dma_direct_alloc zone selection

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:06:48AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-09-27 at 15:49 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:45:15AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > I'm not sure this is entirely right.
> > > 
> > > Let's say the mask is 30 bits. You will return GFP_DMA32, which will
> > > fail if you allocate something above 1G (which is legit for
> > > ZONE_DMA32).
> > 
> > And then we will try GFP_DMA further down in the function:
> > 
> > 		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA) &&
> > 		    dev->coherent_dma_mask < DMA_BIT_MASK(32) &&
> > 		    !(gfp & GFP_DMA)) {
> > 			gfp = (gfp & ~GFP_DMA32) | GFP_DMA;
> > 			goto again;
> > 		}
> > 
> > This is and old optimization from x86, because chances are high that
> > GFP_DMA32 will give you suitable memory for the infamous 31-bit
> > dma mask devices (at least at boot time) and thus we don't have
> > to deplete the tiny ZONE_DMA pool.
> 
> I see, it's rather confusing :-) Wouldn't it be better to check against
> top of 32-bit memory instead here too ?

Where is here?  In __dma_direct_optimal_gfp_mask we already handled
it due to the optimistic zone selection we are discussing.

In the fallback quoted above there is no point for it, as with a
physical memory size smaller than ZONE_DMA32 (or ZONE_DMA for that matter)
we will have succeeded with the optimistic zone selection and not hit
the fallback path.

Either way this code probably needs much better comments.  I'll send
a patch on top of the recent series.