linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: swiotlb: Don’t shrink default buffer when bounce is forced

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <yq5ah5sfjy2j.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 11:40:12 +0530
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	iommu@...ts.linux.dev
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>, suzuki.poulose@....com,
	steven.price@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: swiotlb: Don’t shrink
 default buffer when bounce
 is forced

Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> writes:

> On 2026-01-20 7:01 am, Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) wrote:
>> arm64 reduces the default swiotlb size (for unaligned kmalloc()
>> bouncing) when it detects that no swiotlb bouncing is needed.
>> 
>> If swiotlb bouncing is explicitly forced via the command line
>> (swiotlb=force), this heuristic must not apply. Add a swiotlb helper to
>> query the forced-bounce state and use it to skip the resize when
>> bouncing is forced.
>
> This doesn't appear to be an arm64-specific concern though... Since 
> swiotlb_adjust_size() already prevents resizing if the user requests a 
> specific size on the command line, it seems logical enough to also not 
> reduce the size (but I guess still allow it to be enlarged) there if 
> force is requested.
>

Something like the below? I am wondering whether we are doing more than
what the function name suggests. Not allowing the size to be adjusted
when the kernel parameter specifies a swiotlb size seems fine. However,
I am not sure whether adding the force_bounce check is a good idea. I
only found RISC-V doing a similar size adjustment to arm64. Maybe we can
fix both architectures?

@@ -211,6 +211,8 @@ unsigned long swiotlb_size_or_default(void)
 
 void __init swiotlb_adjust_size(unsigned long size)
 {
+	unsigned long nslabs;
+
 	/*
 	 * If swiotlb parameter has not been specified, give a chance to
 	 * architectures such as those supporting memory encryption to
@@ -220,7 +222,13 @@ void __init swiotlb_adjust_size(unsigned long size)
 		return;
 
 	size = ALIGN(size, IO_TLB_SIZE);
-	default_nslabs = ALIGN(size >> IO_TLB_SHIFT, IO_TLB_SEGSIZE);
+	nslabs = ALIGN(size >> IO_TLB_SHIFT, IO_TLB_SEGSIZE);
+	/*
+	 * Don't allow to reduce size if we are forcing swiotlb bounce.
+	 */
+	if (swiotlb_force_bounce && nslabs < default_nslabs)
+		return;
+	default_nslabs = nslabs;
 	if (round_up_default_nslabs())
 		size = default_nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT;
 	pr_info("SWIOTLB bounce buffer size adjusted to %luMB", size >> 20);