linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arch/*/: remove CONFIG_VIRT_TO

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: <CAMuHMdXUihTPD9A9hs__Xr2ErfOqkZ5KgCHqm+9HvRf39uS5kA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jun 2022 09:03:53 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Linux IOMMU <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Khalid Aziz <khalid@...ehiking.org>,
        "Maciej W . Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>,
        Matt Wang <wwentao@...are.com>,
        Miquel van Smoorenburg <mikevs@...all.net>,
        Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arch/*/: remove CONFIG_VIRT_TO_BUS

Hi Michael,

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 5:26 AM Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com> wrote:
> Am 28.06.2022 um 09:12 schrieb Michael Schmitz:
> > On 27/06/22 20:26, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 3:06 AM Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Am 18.06.2022 um 00:57 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> >>>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> >>>>
> >>>> All architecture-independent users of virt_to_bus() and bus_to_virt()
> >>>> have been fixed to use the dma mapping interfaces or have been
> >>>> removed now.  This means the definitions on most architectures, and the
> >>>> CONFIG_VIRT_TO_BUS symbol are now obsolete and can be removed.
> >>>>
> >>>> The only exceptions to this are a few network and scsi drivers for m68k
> >>>> Amiga and VME machines and ppc32 Macintosh. These drivers work
> >>>> correctly
> >>>> with the old interfaces and are probably not worth changing.
> >>> The Amiga SCSI drivers are all old WD33C93 ones, and replacing
> >>> virt_to_bus by virt_to_phys in the dma_setup() function there would
> >>> cause no functional change at all.
> >> FTR, the sgiwd93 driver use dma_map_single().
> >
> > Thanks! From what I see, it doesn't have to deal with bounce buffers
> > though?
>
> Leaving the bounce buffer handling in place, and taking a few other
> liberties - this is what converting the easiest case (a3000 SCSI) might
> look like. Any obvious mistakes? The mvme147 driver would be very
> similar to handle (after conversion to a platform device).

Thanks, looks reasonable.

> The driver allocates bounce buffers using kmalloc if it hits an
> unaligned data buffer - can such buffers still even happen these days?

No idea.

> If I understand dma_map_single() correctly, the resulting dma handle
> would be equally misaligned?
>
> To allocate a bounce buffer, would it be OK to use dma_alloc_coherent()
> even though AFAIU memory used for DMA buffers generally isn't consistent
> on m68k?
>
> Thinking ahead to the other two Amiga drivers - I wonder whether
> allocating a static bounce buffer or a DMA pool at driver init is likely
> to succeed if the kernel runs from the low 16 MB RAM chunk? It certainly
> won't succeed if the kernel runs from a higher memory address, so the
> present bounce buffer logic around amiga_chip_alloc() might still need
> to be used here.
>
> Leaves the question whether converting the gvp11 and a2091 drivers is
> actually worth it, if bounce buffers still have to be handled explicitly.

A2091 should be straight-forward, as A3000 is basically A2091 on the
motherboard (comparing the two drivers, looks like someone's been
sprinkling mb()s over the A3000 driver).

I don't have any of these SCSI host adapters (not counting the A590
(~A2091) expansion of the old A500, which is not Linux-capable, and
 hasn't been powered on for 20 years).

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds