linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] dma-direct: do not allocate a single page from CMA area

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181121013011.GA5663@Asurada-Nvidia.nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 17:30:12 -0800
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        vdumpa@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] dma-direct: do not allocate a single page from CMA
 area

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:20:10AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:40:51PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > In general, this seems to make sense to me. It does represent a theoretical 
> > > > change in behaviour for devices which have their own CMA area somewhere 
> > > > other than kernel memory, and only ever make non-atomic allocations, but 
> > > > I'm not sure whether that's a realistic or common enough case to really 
> > > > worry about.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I think we should make the decision in dma_alloc_from_contiguous
> > > based on having a per-dev CMA area or not.  There is a lot of cruft in
> > 
> > It seems that cma_alloc() already has a CMA area check? Would it
> > be duplicated to have a similar one in dma_alloc_from_contiguous?
> 
> It isn't duplicate if it serves a different purpose.
> 
> > > this area that should be cleaned up while we're at it, like always
> > > falling back to the normal page allocator if there is no CMA area or
> > > nothing suitable found in dma_alloc_from_contiguous instead of
> > > having to duplicate all that in the caller.
> > 
> > Am I supposed to clean up things that's mentioned above by moving
> > the fallback allocator into dma_alloc_from_contiguous, or to just
> > move my change (the count check) into dma_alloc_from_contiguous?
> > 
> > I understand that'd be great to have a cleanup, yet feel it could
> > be done separately as this patch isn't really a cleanup change.
> 
> I can take care of any cleanups.  I've been trying to dust up that
> area anyway.

Thanks for the reply. It looks like it'd be better for me to wait
for the cleanup being done? I feel odd merely adding a size check
in the dma_alloc_from_contiguous().