linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-mapping: add a dma_ops

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: <37ce1b7e-264d-292d-32b1-093b24b3525c@ozlabs.ru>
Date:   Mon, 23 Mar 2020 19:58:01 +1100
From:   Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-mapping: add a dma_ops_bypass flag to struct
 device



On 23/03/2020 19:37, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:28:34PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> 
> [full quote deleted, please follow proper quoting rules]
> 
>>> +static bool dma_alloc_direct(struct device *dev, const struct dma_map_ops *ops)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (!ops)
>>> +		return true;
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Allows IOMMU drivers to bypass dynamic translations if the DMA mask
>>> +	 * is large enough.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (dev->dma_ops_bypass) {
>>> +		if (min_not_zero(dev->coherent_dma_mask, dev->bus_dma_limit) >=
>>> +				dma_direct_get_required_mask(dev))
>>> +			return true;
>>> +	}
>>
>>
>> Why not do this in dma_map_direct() as well?
> 
> Mostly beacuse it is a relatively expensive operation, including a
> fls64.

Ah, ok.

>> Or simply have just one dma_map_direct()?
> 
> What do you mean with that?

I mean use dma_alloc_direct() instead of dma_map_direct() everywhere,
you explained just above.

> 
>> And one more general question - we need a way to use non-direct IOMMU
>> for RAM above certain limit.
>>
>> Let's say we have a system with:
>> 0 .. 0x1.0000.0000
>> 0x100.0000.0000 .. 0x101.0000.0000
>>
>> 2x4G, each is 1TB aligned. And we can map directly only the first 4GB
>> (because of the maximum IOMMU table size) but not the other. And 1:1 on
>> that "pseries" is done with offset=0x0800.0000.0000.0000.
>>
>> So we want to check every bus address against dev->bus_dma_limit, not
>> dev->coherent_dma_mask. In the example above I'd set bus_dma_limit to
>> 0x0800.0001.0000.0000 and 1:1 mapping for the second 4GB would not be
>> tried. Does this sound reasonable? Thanks,
> 
> bus_dma_limit is just another limiting factor applied on top of
> coherent_dma_mask or dma_mask respectively.

This is not enough for the task: in my example, I'd set bus limit to
0x0800.0001.0000.0000 but this would disable bypass for all RAM
addresses - the first and the second 4GB blocks.


-- 
Alexey