[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXH5O32H1nnm6y7=3KiH7R-_oakxzBpZ20wK+8kaD46aKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:38:15 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] crypto: Use ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN instead of ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 at 12:45, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:22:27PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > Subsequent objects are owned by the driver, and it is the
> > responsibility of the driver not to modify the fields while it is also
> > mapped for DMA (and we have had issues in the past where drivers
> > violated this rule). So as long as ARCH_KMALLOC_ALIGN guarantees
> > actual DMA minimum alignment for both the start and the end, we
> > shouldn't need any explicit padding at the end.
>
> I don't understand why this is guaranteed. The driver context
> size is arbitrary so it could end in the middle of a cacheline.
> The slab allocator could well lay it out so that the next kmalloc
> object starts right after the end of the context, in which case
> they would share a cache-line.
>
If this is the case, things are already broken today. We never take
ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN into account when adding the driver ctx size to the
overall allocation size.
> The next kmalloc object could be (and in fact is likely to be)
> of the same type.
>
> Previously this wasn't possible because kmalloc guaranteed
> alignment.
>
Either it does or it doesn't. If kmalloc() guarantees the actual DMA
alignment at both ends, the situation you describe cannot occur, given
that the driver's slice of the request/TFM structure would be padded
up to actual DMA alignment, in spite of whether or not
ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN exceeds that. So it would never share a cacheline in
practice, even though they might live in the same 128 byte aligned
region on a system that has a minimum DMA alignment that is lower than
that.
If kmalloc() does not guarantee that the end of the buffer is aligned
to actual DMA alignment, things are already broken today.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists