netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] fix problems with NETIF_F

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: <51f3faa71002270959o4d1435e3xf67185fccaf50b18@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:59:47 -0600
From:	Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	bzolnier@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fix problems with NETIF_F_HIGHDMA in networking 
	drivers

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:53 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com>
> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:08:04 -0600
>
>> That seems like a reasonable approach to me. Only question is how to
>> implement the check for DMA_64BIT. Can we just check page_to_phys on
>> each of the pages in the skb to see if it's > 0xffffffff ? Are there
>> any architectures where it's more complicated than that?
>
> On almost every platform it's "more complicated than that".
>
> This is the whole issue.  What matters is the final DMA address and
> since we have IOMMUs and the like, it is absolutely not tenable to
> solve this by checking physical address attributes.

Yeah, physical address isn't quite right. There is a precedent for
such a check in the block layer though - look at
blk_queue_bounce_limit in block/blk-settings.c:

void blk_queue_bounce_limit(struct request_queue *q, u64 dma_mask)
{
        unsigned long b_pfn = dma_mask >> PAGE_SHIFT;
        int dma = 0;

        q->bounce_gfp = GFP_NOIO;
#if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
        /*
         * Assume anything <= 4GB can be handled by IOMMU.  Actually
         * some IOMMUs can handle everything, but I don't know of a
         * way to test this here.
         */
        if (b_pfn < (min_t(u64, 0xffffffffUL, BLK_BOUNCE_HIGH) >> PAGE_SHIFT))
                dma = 1;
        q->limits.bounce_pfn = max_low_pfn;
#else
        if (b_pfn < blk_max_low_pfn)
                dma = 1;
        q->limits.bounce_pfn = b_pfn;
#endif
        if (dma) {
                init_emergency_isa_pool();
                q->bounce_gfp = GFP_NOIO | GFP_DMA;
                q->limits.bounce_pfn = b_pfn;
        }
}

and then in mm/bounce.c:

static void __blk_queue_bounce(struct request_queue *q, struct bio **bio_orig,
                               mempool_t *pool)
{
        struct page *page;
        struct bio *bio = NULL;
        int i, rw = bio_data_dir(*bio_orig);
        struct bio_vec *to, *from;

        bio_for_each_segment(from, *bio_orig, i) {
                page = from->bv_page;

                /*
                 * is destination page below bounce pfn?
                 */
                if (page_to_pfn(page) <= queue_bounce_pfn(q))
                        continue;

Following that logic then, it appears that page_to_pfn(page) >
(0xffffffff >> PAGE_SHIFT) should tell us what we want to know for the
DMA_64BIT flag.. or am I missing something?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html