linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 22/28] sgiseeq: convert from dma_cache_sync to dma_sync_single_for

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:   Tue, 1 Sep 2020 19:16:27 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@...sung.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
        Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
        Matt Porter <mporter@...nel.crashing.org>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Pawel Osciak <pawel@...iak.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Seung-Woo Kim <sw0312.kim@...sung.com>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/28] sgiseeq: convert from dma_cache_sync to
 dma_sync_single_for_device

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 07:12:41PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 05:22:09PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 08:55:49AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Use the proper modern API to transfer cache ownership for incoherent DMA.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/ethernet/seeq/sgiseeq.c | 12 ++++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/seeq/sgiseeq.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/seeq/sgiseeq.c
> > > index 39599bbb5d45b6..f91dae16d69a19 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/seeq/sgiseeq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/seeq/sgiseeq.c
> > > @@ -112,14 +112,18 @@ struct sgiseeq_private {
> > >  
> > >  static inline void dma_sync_desc_cpu(struct net_device *dev, void *addr)
> > >  {
> > > -	dma_cache_sync(dev->dev.parent, addr, sizeof(struct sgiseeq_rx_desc),
> > > -		       DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
> > > +	struct sgiseeq_private *sp = netdev_priv(dev);
> > > +
> > > +	dma_sync_single_for_cpu(dev->dev.parent, VIRT_TO_DMA(sp, addr),
> > > +			sizeof(struct sgiseeq_rx_desc), DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static inline void dma_sync_desc_dev(struct net_device *dev, void *addr)
> > >  {
> > > -	dma_cache_sync(dev->dev.parent, addr, sizeof(struct sgiseeq_rx_desc),
> > > -		       DMA_TO_DEVICE);
> > > +	struct sgiseeq_private *sp = netdev_priv(dev);
> > > +
> > > +	dma_sync_single_for_device(dev->dev.parent, VIRT_TO_DMA(sp, addr),
> > > +			sizeof(struct sgiseeq_rx_desc), DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
> > >  }
> > 
> > this breaks ethernet on IP22 completely, but I haven't figured out why, yet.
> 
> the problem is that dma_sync_single_for_cpu() doesn't flush anything
> for IP22, because it only flushes for CPUs which do speculation. So
> either MIPS arch_sync_dma_for_cpu() should always flush or sgiseeq
> needs to use a different sync funktion, when it wants to re-read descriptors
> from memory.

Well, if IP22 doesn't speculate (which I'm pretty sure is the case),
dma_sync_single_for_cpu should indeeed be a no-op.  But then there
also shouldn't be anything in the cache, as the previous
dma_sync_single_for_device should have invalidated it.  So it seems like
we are missing one (or more) ownership transfers to the device.  I'll
try to look at the the ownership management in a little more detail
tomorrow.