[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231128081610.5616ef14@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:16:10 +0100
From: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik1@...wei-partners.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>,
Jianxiong Gao <jxgao@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Memory corruption with CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC=y
On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 16:59:13 +0100
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:16:08AM +0100, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> > > To sum it up, there are two types of alignment:
> > >
> > > 1. specified by a device's min_align_mask; this says how many low
> > > bits of a buffer's physical address must be preserved,
> > >
> > > 2. specified by allocation size and/or the alignment parameter;
> > > this says how many low bits in the first IO TLB slot's physical
> > > address must be zero.
>
> Both are correct.
Great! Thank you for confirmation. Unfortunately, that's not quite how
the code works now.
I'm on it to fix things.
Petr T
Powered by blists - more mailing lists