linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/10] crypto: Use ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN instead of ARCH_KMALLOC

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: <YmFbQiSFyQ+W85Zx@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:25:22 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        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 Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 02:28:45PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 1:06 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:20:22AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Btw, there is another option:  Most real systems already require having
> > > swiotlb to bounce buffer in some cases.  We could simply force bounce
> > > buffering in the dma mapping code for too small or not properly aligned
> > > transfers and just decrease the dma alignment.
> >
> > We can force bounce if size is small but checking the alignment is
> > trickier. Normally the beginning of the buffer is aligned but the end is
> > at some sizeof() distance. We need to know whether the end is in a
> > kmalloc-128 cache and that requires reaching out to the slab internals.
> > That's doable and not expensive but it needs to be done for every small
> > size getting to the DMA API, something like (for mm/slub.c):
> >
> >         folio = virt_to_folio(x);
> >         slab = folio_slab(folio);
> >         if (slab->slab_cache->align < ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN)
> >                 ... bounce ...
> >
> > (and a bit different for mm/slab.c)
> 
> I think the decision to bounce or not can be based on the actual
> cache line size at runtime, so most commonly 64 bytes on arm64,
> even though the compile-time limit is 128 bytes.
> 
> We also know that larger slabs are all cacheline aligned, so simply
> comparing the transfer size is enough to rule out most, in this case
> any transfer larger than 96 bytes must come from the kmalloc-128
> or larger cache, so that works like before.

There's also the case with 128-byte cache lines and kmalloc-192.

> For transfers <=96 bytes, the possibilities are:
> 
> 1.kmalloc-32 or smaller, always needs to bounce
> 2. kmalloc-96, but at least one byte in partial cache line,
>     need to bounce
> 3. kmalloc-64, may skip the bounce.
> 4. kmalloc-128 or larger, or not a slab cache but a partial
>     transfer, may skip the bounce.
> 
> I would guess that the first case is the most common here,
> so unless bouncing one or two cache lines is extremely
> expensive, I don't expect it to be worth optimizing for the latter
> two cases.

I think so. If someone complains of a performance regression, we can
look at optimising the bounce. I have a suspicion the cost of copying
two cache lines is small compared to swiotlb_find_slots() etc.

-- 
Catalin