linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] dma: improve DMA zone selection

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: <ZrN9mRoQj2lTo6L5@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 14:58:49 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>,
	Ramon Fried <ramon@...reality.ai>,
	Elad Nachman <enachman@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] dma: improve DMA zone selection

Thanks Robin for having a look.

On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 02:13:06PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2024-08-02 7:03 am, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > When device DMA limit does not fit in DMA32 zone it should use DMA zone,
> > even when DMA zone is stricter than needed.
> > 
> > Same goes for devices that can't allocate from the entire normal zone.
> > Limit to DMA32 in that case.
> 
> Per the bot report this only works for CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK,

Yeah, I just noticed.

> however
> the whole concept looks wrong anyway. The logic here is that we're only
> forcing a particular zone if there's *no* chance of the higher zone being
> usable. For example, ignoring offsets for simplicity, if we have a 40-bit
> DMA mask then we *do* want to initially try allocating from ZONE_NORMAL even
> if max_pfn is above 40 bits, since we still might get a usable allocation
> from between 32 and 40 bits, and if we don't, then we'll fall back to
> retrying from the DMA zone(s) anyway.

Ah, I did not read the code further down in __dma_direct_alloc_pages(),
it does fall back to a GFP_DMA allocation if !dma_coherent_ok().
Similarly with swiotlb_alloc_tlb(), it keeps retrying until the
allocation fails.

So yes, this patch can be dropped.

-- 
Catalin