linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/2] swiotlb: Remove alloc_size argument to swiotlb_tbl_map

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:
 <SN6PR02MB415749D379BFCC0749B44900D4092@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:03:30 +0000
From: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
To: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
CC: "mhkelley58@...il.com" <mhkelley58@...il.com>, "robin.murphy@....com"
	<robin.murphy@....com>, "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
	"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>, "jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>,
	"sstabellini@...nel.org" <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
	"oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com" <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>, "hch@....de"
	<hch@....de>, "m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	"roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com" <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] swiotlb: Remove alloc_size argument to
 swiotlb_tbl_map_single()

From: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 5:50 AM
> 
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:23:22 +0000
> Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 4:46 AM
> > >
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > sorry for taking so long to answer. Yes, there was no agreement on the
> > > removal of the "dir" parameter, but I'm not sure it's because of
> > > symmetry with swiotlb_sync_*(), because the topic was not really
> > > discussed.
> > >
> > > The discussion was about the KUnit test suite and whether direction is
> > > a property of the bounce buffer or of each sync operation. Since DMA API
> > > defines associates each DMA buffer with a direction, the direction
> > > parameter passed to swiotlb_sync_*() should match what was passed to
> > > swiotlb_tbl_map_single(), because that's how it is used by the generic
> > > DMA code. In other words, if the parameter is kept, it should be kept
> > > to match dma_map_*().
> > >
> > > However, there is also symmetry with swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(). This
> > > function does use the parameter for the final sync. I believe there
> > > should be a matching initial sync in swiotlb_tbl_map_single(). In
> > > short, the buffer sync for DMA non-coherent devices should be moved from
> > > swiotlb_map() to swiotlb_tbl_map_single(). If this sync is not needed,
> > > then the caller can (and should) include DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC in
> > > the flags parameter.
> > >
> > > To sum it up:
> > >
> > > * Do *NOT* remove the "dir" parameter.
> > > * Let me send a patch which moves the initial buffer sync.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not seeing the need to move the initial buffer sync.  All
> > callers of swiotlb_tbl_map_single() already have a subsequent
> > check for a non-coherent device, and a call to
> > arch_sync_dma_for_device().  And the Xen code has some
> > special handling that probably shouldn't go in
> > swiotlb_tbl_map_single().  Or am I missing something?
> 
> Oh, sure, there's nothing broken ATM. It's merely a cleanup. The API is
> asymmetric and thus confusing. You get a final sync by default if you
> call swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(), 

I don't see that final sync in swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single().  It calls
swiotlb_bounce() to copy the data, but it doesn't deal with
non-coherent devices or call arch_sync_dma_for_cpu().

> but you don't get an initial sync by
> default if you call swiotlb_tbl_map_single(). This is difficult to
> remember, so potential new users of the API may incorrectly assume that
> an initial sync is done, or that a final sync is not done.
> 
> And yes, when moving the code, all current users of
> swiotlb_tbl_map_single() should specify DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC.
> 
> Petr T