linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Revert "swiotlb: remove SWIOTLB_MAP

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:   Tue, 5 Mar 2019 09:41:46 +0000
From:   Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "open list:IOMMU DRIVERS" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Revert "swiotlb: remove SWIOTLB_MAP_ERROR"

Hi Arnd,

On 3/5/19 8:16 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:56 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> wrote:
>> On 2019-03-04 7:59 pm, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> This reverts commit b907e20508d0 ("swiotlb: remove SWIOTLB_MAP_ERROR"), which
>>> introduced an overflow warning in configurations that have a larger
>>> dma_addr_t than phys_addr_t:
>>>
>>> In file included from include/linux/dma-direct.h:5,
>>>                    from kernel/dma/swiotlb.c:23:
>>> kernel/dma/swiotlb.c: In function 'swiotlb_tbl_map_single':
>>> include/linux/dma-mapping.h:136:28: error: conversion from 'long long unsigned int' to 'phys_addr_t' {aka 'unsigned int'} changes value from '18446744073709551615' to '4294967295' [-Werror=overflow]
>>>    #define DMA_MAPPING_ERROR  (~(dma_addr_t)0)
>>>                               ^
>>> kernel/dma/swiotlb.c:544:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DMA_MAPPING_ERROR'
>>>     return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;
>>>
>>> The configuration that caused this is on 32-bit ARM, where the DMA address
>>> space depends on the enabled hardware platforms, while the physical
>>> address space depends on the type of MMU chosen (classic vs LPAE).
>>
>> Are these real platforms, or random configs? Realistically I don't see a
>> great deal of need to support DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT for non-LPAE.
>> Particularly in this case since AFAIK the only selector of SWIOTLB on
>> Arm is Xen, and that by definition is never going to be useful on
>> non-LPAE hardware.
> ...
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:00 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
>> What about making the phys_addr_t and dma_addr_t have the same
>> width with some magic #ifdef hackery?
> 
> As far as I can tell, only randconfig builds see this problem, in
> real systems phys_addr_t is normally the same as dma_addr_t,
> and you could reasonably have a machine with a larger phys_addr_t
> than dma_addr_t but wouldn't need to bother.

On Xen, dma_addr_t will always be 64-bit while the phys_addr_t will 
depend on the MMU type. So we may have phys_addr_t smaller than 
dma_addr_t from the kernel point of view.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall