linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] dma-pool: allow user to disable atomic pool

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]

Date:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 08:46:27 -0500
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, rientjes@...gle.com
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
        rppt@...ux.ibm.com, brijesh.singh@....com,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        m.szyprowski@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] dma-pool: allow user to disable atomic pool

On 8/10/21 9:23 PM, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 08/10/21 at 03:52pm, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> On 8/5/21 1:54 AM, Baoquan He wrote:
>>> On 06/24/21 at 11:47am, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>> On 2021-06-24 10:29, Baoquan He wrote:
>>>>> On 06/24/21 at 08:40am, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

...

> Looking at the those related commits, the below one from David tells 
> that atomic dma pool is used when device require non-blocking and
> unencrypted buffer. When I checked the system I borrowed, it's AMD EYPC
> and SME is enabled. And it has many pci devices, as you can see, its 'ls
> pci' outputs 113 lines. But disabling the three atomic pools didn't
> trigger any error on that AMD system. Does it mean only specific devices
> need this atomic pool in SME/SEV enabling case? Should we add more
> details in document or code comment to make clear this? 

It very well could be just the devices being used. Under SME (bare metal),
if a device supports 64-bit DMA, then bounce buffers aren't used and the
DMA can be performed directly to encrypted memory, so there is no need to
issue a set_memory_decrypted() call, so I would assume it likely isn't
using the pool.

Under SEV, however, all DMA has to go through guest un-encrypted memory.
If you pass through a device that does dma_alloc_coherent() calls with
GFP_ATOMIC, then the pool will be needed.

Thanks,
Tom