linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] arm: xen: mm: use __GPF

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]

Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB4481386D2C54AEA6987E1B1588A30@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:48:16 +0000
From:   Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "sstabellini@...nel.org" <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
        "van.freenix@...il.com" <van.freenix@...il.com>,
        "xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] arm: xen: mm: use __GPF_DMA32 for arm64

Hi Robin,

> Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: xen: mm: use __GPF_DMA32 for arm64
> 
> On 09/07/2019 09:22, Peng Fan wrote:
> > arm64 shares some code under arch/arm/xen, including mm.c.
> > However ZONE_DMA is removed by commit
> > ad67f5a6545("arm64: replace ZONE_DMA with ZONE_DMA32").
> > So to ARM64, need use __GFP_DMA32.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > ---
> >   arch/arm/xen/mm.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/xen/mm.c b/arch/arm/xen/mm.c index
> > e1d44b903dfc..a95e76d18bf9 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/xen/mm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/xen/mm.c
> > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ unsigned long xen_get_swiotlb_free_pages(unsigned
> > int order)
> >
> >   	for_each_memblock(memory, reg) {
> >   		if (reg->base < (phys_addr_t)0xffffffff) {
> > -			flags |= __GFP_DMA;
> > +			flags |= __GFP_DMA | __GFP_DMA32;
> 
> Given the definition of GFP_ZONE_BAD, I'm not sure this combination of flags
> is strictly valid, but rather is implicitly reliant on only one of those zones ever
> actually existing. As such, it seems liable to blow up if the plans to add
> ZONE_DMA to arm64[1] go ahead.

How about this, or do you have any suggestions?
diff --git a/arch/arm/xen/mm.c b/arch/arm/xen/mm.c
index d33b77e9add3..f61c29a4430f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/xen/mm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/xen/mm.c
@@ -28,7 +28,11 @@ unsigned long xen_get_swiotlb_free_pages(unsigned int order)

        for_each_memblock(memory, reg) {
                if (reg->base < (phys_addr_t)0xffffffff) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
+                       flags |= __GFP_DMA32;
+#else
                        flags |= __GFP_DMA;
+#endif
                        break;
                }
        }

Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> Robin.
> 
> [1]
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.ke
> rnel.org%2Flinux-arm-kernel%2F20190820145821.27214-1-nsaenzjulienne%
> 40suse.de%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com%7C5d2a641b1
> e3f449562f908d72ae95d85%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0
> %7C0%7C637025054169859035&amp;sdata=1ZPGH0gZnvgmlMpX7VrjUNME
> XbEjiv4%2FZ9pYwTQTWxY%3D&amp;reserved=0
> 
> >   			break;
> >   		}
> >   	}
> >