linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: ensure io_tlb_default

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: <4fa8b709-c883-54dc-c302-20c9e55ae93a@sifive.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:24:51 +0100
From:   Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ive.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@...ive.com>,
        Jude Onyenegecha <jude.onyenegecha@...ive.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: ensure io_tlb_default_mem spinlock always
 initialised

On 11/07/2022 11:21, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 11:07:17AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> If none of your peripherals should need SWIOTLB, then the fact that
>> you're ending up in swiotlb_map() at all is a clear sign that
>> something's wrong. Most likely someone's forgotten to set their DMA
>> masks correctly.
> 
> Yes.

Possibly, we had at least one driver which attempted to set a 32 bit
DMA mask which had to be removed as the DMA layer accepts this but
since there is no DMA32 memory the allocator then just fails.

I expect the above may need to be a separate discussion(s) of how to
default the DMA mask and how to stop the implicit acceptance of setting
a 32-bit DMA mask.
>>
>> However, by inspection it seems we do have a bug here as well, for which
>> the correct fix should be as below. The fireworks you're *supposed* to
>> get in that situation are considerably louder and more obvious than a
>> DEBUG_SPINLOCK complaint ;)
> 
> This looks sensible, I'll pick it up.