[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191030214140.GB25515@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:41:40 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
Cc: rubini@...dd.com, hch@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, helgaas@...nel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dma-direct: check for overflows on 32 bit DMA
addresses
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 01:00:43PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT
> + /* Check if DMA address overflowed */
> + if (min(addr, addr + size - 1) <
> + __phys_to_dma(dev, (phys_addr_t)(min_low_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT)))
> + return false;
> +#endif
Would be nice to use IS_ENABLED and PFN_PHYS here, and I also think we
need to use phys_to_dma to take care of the encryption bit. If you then
also introduce an end variable we can make the whole thing actually look
nice:
static inline bool dma_capable(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t addr, size_t size)
{
dma_addr_t end = addr + size - 1;
if (!dev->dma_mask)
return false;
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT) &&
min(addr, end) < phys_to_dma(dev, PFN_PHYS(min_low_pfn)))
return false;
return end <= min_not_zero(*dev->dma_mask, dev->bus_dma_mask);
}
Otherwise this looks sensible to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists