linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: force unencryped devices are always addressing limited

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:   Thu, 28 Nov 2019 08:51:53 +0100
From:   "hch@....de" <hch@....de>
To:     Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
Cc:     "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
        "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>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: force unencryped devices are always
 addressing limited

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 06:22:57PM +0000, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> >  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?

We have a hard time handling that in generic code.  Do we have any
good use case for SWIOTLB_FORCE not that we have force_dma_unencrypted?
I'd love to be able to get rid of it..