linux-kernel - Re: Memory corruption with CONFIG_SWIOTLB

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: <41c0baf6-ba4d-4876-b692-279307265466@huawei-partners.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2023 12:04:12 +0100
From:   Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik1@...wei-partners.com>
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
CC:     Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@...rix.com>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Memory corruption with CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC=y

On 11/8/2023 11:52 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 19:59:49 +0100
> Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz> wrote:
> 
>>> Not sure how to properly fix this as the different alignment
>>> requirements get pretty complex quickly. So would appreciate your
>>> input.  
>>
>> I don't think it's possible to improve the allocation logic without
>> modifying the page allocator and/or the DMA atomic pool allocator to
>> take additional constraints into account.
> 
> I don't understand. What speaks against calculating the amount of space
> needed, so that with the waste we can still fit the bounce-buffer in the
> pool?
> 
> I believe alloc_size + combined_mask is a trivial upper bound, but we can
> do slightly better since we know that we allocate pages.
> 
> For the sake of simplicity let us assume we only have the min_align_mask
> requirement. Then I believe the worst case is that we need 
> (orig_addr & min_align_mask & PAGE_MASK)  + (min_align_mask & ~PAGE_MASK)
> extra space to fit.
> 
> Depending on how the semantics pan out one may be able to replace
> min_align_mask with combined_mask.
> 
> Is your point that for large combined_mask values 
> _get_free_pages(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN, required_order) is not
> likely to complete successfully?

Yes, that's the reason. OTOH it's probably worth a try. The point is
that mapping a DMA buffer is allowed to fail, so callers should be
prepared anyway.

And for the case you reported initially, I don't think there is any need
to preserve bit 11 (0x800) from the original buffer's physical address,
which is enough to fix it. See also my other email earlier today.

Petr T