linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: check alloc_size before the allocation of a new memory pool

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: <237db58a-18ad-b3ea-7559-3c22169cba26@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 10:34:15 +0800
From: "zhangpeng (AS)" <zhangpeng362@...wei.com>
To: Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik1@...wei-partners.com>, <hch@....de>,
	<m.szyprowski@...sung.com>, <robin.murphy@....com>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, <sunnanyong@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: check alloc_size before the allocation of a new
 memory pool

On 2024/1/8 23:46, Petr Tesarik wrote:

> On 1/8/2024 3:00 PM, Peng Zhang wrote:
>> From: ZhangPeng <zhangpeng362@...wei.com>
>>
>> The allocation request for swiotlb contiguous memory greater than
>> 128*2KB cannot be fulfilled because it exceeds the maximum contiguous
>> memory limit. If the swiotlb memory we allocate is larger than 128*2KB,
>> swiotlb_find_slots() will still schedule the allocation of a new memory
>> pool, which will increase memory overhead.
>>
>> Fix it by adding a check with alloc_size no more than 128*2KB before
>> scheduling the allocation of a new memory pool in swiotlb_find_slots().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: ZhangPeng <zhangpeng362@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/dma/swiotlb.c | 3 +++
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
>> index 33d942615be5..cc92cff02c60 100644
>> --- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
>> +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
>> @@ -1126,6 +1126,9 @@ static int swiotlb_find_slots(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t orig_addr,
>>   	u64 phys_limit;
>>   	int index;
>>   
>> +	if (alloc_size > IO_TLB_SEGSIZE * IO_TLB_SIZE)
>> +		return -1;
>> +
>>   	rcu_read_lock();
>>   	list_for_each_entry_rcu(pool, &mem->pools, node) {
>>   		index = swiotlb_pool_find_slots(dev, pool, orig_addr,
> IIUC this such big allocations are not normally required by drivers, but
> I have already run into a similar issue with a Raspberry Pi 4 dma-buf
> object, so they can be triggered at will by user space. I also believe
> this sanity check is a good idea in general, not only when dynamic
> SWIOTLB is enabled.
>
> Reviewed-by: Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik1@...wei-partners.com>
>
> Petr T

Thanks for your review!

-- 
Best Regards,
Peng