linux-kernel - Re: [BISECTED REGRESSION] b43legacy broken on G4 PowerBook

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:09:47 -0500
From:   Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
        Christian Zigotzky <chzigotzky@...osoft.de>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [BISECTED REGRESSION] b43legacy broken on G4 PowerBook

On 6/10/19 3:18 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 04:52:24PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
>> On 6/7/19 12:29 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> I don't think we should work around this in the driver, we need to fix
>>> it in the core.  I'm curious why my previous patch didn't work.  Can
>>> you throw in a few printks what failed?  I.e. did dma_direct_supported
>>> return false?  Did the actual allocation fail?
>>
>> Routine dma_direct_supported() returns true.
>>
>> The failure is in routine dma_set_mask() in the following if test:
>>
>>          if (!dev->dma_mask || !dma_supported(dev, mask))
>>                  return -EIO;
>>
>> For b43legacy, dev->dma_mask is 0xc265684800000000.
>>      dma_supported(dev, mask) is 0xc08b000000000000, mask is 0x3fffffff, and
>> the routine returns -EIO.
>>
>> For b43,       dev->dma_mask is 0xc265684800000001,
>>      dma_supported(dev, mask) is 0xc08b000000000000, mask is 0x77777777, and
>> the routine returns 0.
> 
> I don't fully understand what values the above map to.  Can you send
> me your actual debugging patch as well?

I do not understand why the if statement returns true as neither of the values 
is zero. After seeing the x86 output shown below, I also do not understand all 
the trailing zeros.

My entire patch is attached. That output came from this section:

diff --git a/kernel/dma/mapping.c b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
index f7afdad..ba2489d 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/mapping.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
@@ -317,9 +317,12 @@ int dma_supported(struct device *dev, u64 mask)

  int dma_set_mask(struct device *dev, u64 mask)
  {
+       pr_info("mask 0x%llx, dma_mask 0x%llx, dma_supported 0x%llx\n", mask, 
dev->dma_mask,
+               dma_supported(dev, mask));
         if (!dev->dma_mask || !dma_supported(dev, mask))
                 return -EIO;

+       pr_info("Continuing in dma_set_mask()\n");
         arch_dma_set_mask(dev, mask);
         dma_check_mask(dev, mask);
         *dev->dma_mask = mask;

On a 32-bit x86 computer with 1GB of RAM, that same output was

For b43legacy, dev->dma_mask is 0x01f4029044.
     dma_supported(dev, mask) is 0x1ef37f7000, mask is 0x3fffffff, and
the routine returns 0. 30-bit DMA works.

For b43,       dev->dma_mask is 0x01f4029044,
     dma_supported(dev, mask) is 0x1ef37f7000, mask is 0xffffffff, and
  the routine also returns 0. This card supports 32-bit DMA.

Larry

View attachment "b43legacy_tests" of type "text/plain" (4133 bytes)