linux-kernel - Re: [REGRESSION] Recent swiotlb DMA_FROM

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: <81ffc753-72aa-6327-b87b-3f11915f2549@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:05:08 +0000
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Olha Cherevyk <olha.cherevyk@...il.com>,
        iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] Recent swiotlb DMA_FROM_DEVICE fixes break
 ath9k-based AP

On 2022-03-24 10:25, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On čtvrtek 24. března 2022 6:57:32 CET Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:54:08PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> I'll admit I still never quite grasped the reason for also adding the
>>> override to swiotlb_sync_single_for_device() in aa6f8dcbab47, but I think
>>> by that point we were increasingly tired and confused and starting to
>>> second-guess ourselves (well, I was, at least). I don't think it's wrong
>>> per se, but as I said I do think it can bite anyone who's been doing
>>> dma_sync_*() wrong but getting away with it until now. If ddbd89deb7d3
>>> alone turns out to work OK then I'd be inclined to try a partial revert of
>>> just that one hunk.
>>
>> Agreed.  Let's try that first.
>>
>> Oleksandr, can you try the patch below:
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
>> index 6db1c475ec827..6c350555e5a1c 100644
>> --- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
>> +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
>> @@ -701,13 +701,10 @@ void swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
>>   void swiotlb_sync_single_for_device(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
>>   		size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir)
>>   {
>> -	/*
>> -	 * Unconditional bounce is necessary to avoid corruption on
>> -	 * sync_*_for_cpu or dma_ummap_* when the device didn't overwrite
>> -	 * the whole lengt of the bounce buffer.
>> -	 */
>> -	swiotlb_bounce(dev, tlb_addr, size, DMA_TO_DEVICE);
>> -	BUG_ON(!valid_dma_direction(dir));
>> +	if (dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE || dir == DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL)
>> +		swiotlb_bounce(dev, tlb_addr, size, DMA_TO_DEVICE);
>> +	else
>> +		BUG_ON(dir != DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
>>   }
>>   
>>   void swiotlb_sync_single_for_cpu(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
>>
> 
> With this patch the AP works for me.

Cool, thanks for confirming. So I think ath9k probably is doing 
something dodgy with dma_sync_*(), but if Linus prefers to make the 
above change rather than wait for that to get figured out, I believe 
that should be fine.

The crucial part of the "rework" patch is that we'll unconditionally 
initialise the SWIOTLB bounce slot as it's allocated in 
swiotlb_tbl_map_single(), regardless of DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC. As long 
as that happens, we're safe in terms of leaking data from previous 
mappings, and any possibility for incorrect sync usage to lose 
newly-written DMA data is at least no worse than it always has been. The 
most confusion was around how the proposed DMA_ATTR_OVERWRITE attribute 
would need to interact with DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC to remain safe but 
still have any useful advantage, so unless and until anyone wants to 
revisit that, this should remain comparatively simple to reason about.

Cheers,
Robin.