linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 07/17] dma-mapping: Implement link/unlink ranges API

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: <20250115072718.GJ3146852@unreal>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 09:27:18 +0200
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
	Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
	Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>,
	Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/17] dma-mapping: Implement link/unlink ranges API

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 07:26:28AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 08:50:35PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:

<...>

> >> +	if (dev_use_swiotlb(dev, size, dir) && iova_offset(iovad, phys | size))
> >
> > Again, why are we supporting non-granule-aligned mappings in the middle of 
> > a range when the documentation explicitly says not to?
> 
> It's not trying to support that, but checking that this is guaranteed
> to be the last one is harder than handling it like this.  If you have
> a suggestion for better checks that would be very welcome.
> 
> >> +		if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev) &&
> >> +		    !(attrs & DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC))
> >> +			arch_sync_dma_for_cpu(phys, len, dir);
> >
> > Hmm, how do attrs even work for a bulk unlink/destroy when the individual 
> > mappings could have been linked with different values?
> 
> They shouldn't.  Just like randomly mixing flags doesn't work for the
> existing APIs.
> 
> > (So no, irrespective of how conceptually horrid it is, clearly it's not 
> > even functionally viable to open-code abuse of DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC in 
> > callers to attempt to work around P2P mappings...)
> 
> What do you mean with "work around"?  I guess Leon added it to the hmm
> code based on previous feedback, but I still don't think any of our P2P
> infrastructure works reliably with non-coherent devices as
> iommu_dma_map_sg gets this wrong.  So despite the earlier comments I
> suspect this should stick to the state of the art even if that is broken.

Right, I was asked to set DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC for PCI_P2PDMA_MAP_THRU_HOST_BRIDGE case.
...
  752         case PCI_P2PDMA_MAP_THRU_HOST_BRIDGE:
  753                 attrs |= DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC;
  754                 pfns[idx] |= HMM_PFN_P2PDMA;
  755                 break;

At this stage, we didn't change DMA/IOMMU previous behaviour and if it
was broken for certain flows, it stays to be broken after this series
too.

Thanks