[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a95d9115fc2a80de2f97f001bbcd9aba6636e685.camel@vmware.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:22:57 +0000
From: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
To: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>
CC: "thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"christian.koenig@....com" <christian.koenig@....com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: force unencryped devices are always
addressing limited
Hi,
On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 15:40 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Devices that are forced to DMA through unencrypted bounce buffers
> need to be treated as if they are addressing limited.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> ---
> kernel/dma/mapping.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/mapping.c b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
> index 1dbe6d725962..f6c35b53d996 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/mapping.c
> +++ b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
> @@ -416,6 +416,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_get_merge_boundary);
> */
> bool dma_addressing_limited(struct device *dev)
> {
> + if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev))
> + return true;
> return min_not_zero(dma_get_mask(dev), dev->bus_dma_limit) <
> dma_get_required_mask(dev);
> }
Any chance to have the case
(swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_FORCE)
also included?
Otherwise for the series
Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellström <thellstrom@...are.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists