linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] dma-mapping: introduce DMA range map, supplanting dma_pfn

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200916061359.GA8424@lst.de>
Date:   Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:13:59 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@...adcom.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        arnaud.pouliquen@...com, loic.pallardy.st.com@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] dma-mapping: introduce DMA range map, supplanting
 dma_pfn_offset

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 01:55:01PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> That did the trick - the stm32 platform driver's probe() function completes and
> the remote processor is operatinal. 
> 
> That being said the value returned by function dma_to_pfn()
> is 0x137fff in the original code and 0xfffff with your patches applied.

Yes, that is intentional.  The old code just applied the range and got
an out of range offset, the new one reports the max offset.