linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] swiotlb: Fix a couple of bugs in sizing areas

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: <20230629051238.GB16654@lst.de>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2023 07:12:38 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
Cc:     Petr Tesarik <petrtesarik@...weicloud.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "open list:DMA MAPPING HELPERS" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] swiotlb: Fix a couple of bugs in sizing areas

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:07:25PM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> As an aside (and not directly related to the bugfixes themselves), I
> wonder why the area size cannot be always equal to IO_TLB_SEGSIZE. Of
> course, we would (usually) end up with more areas, but that should be
> a good thing, shouldn't it? The area structure is quite small, so it
> cannot be because of memory consumption concerns. The overhead of
> taking an uncontended spinlock should also be negligible.

What would be the benefit of this?