netdev - Re: Problem with non aligned DMA in usbnet on ARM

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]

Date:	Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:42:38 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Martin Fuzzey <mfuzzey@...il.com>
Cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-usb <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Problem with non aligned DMA in usbnet on ARM

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 06:08:43PM +0200, Martin Fuzzey wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> >> Here is a pointer to the thread where it was stated that HCD's don't
> >> have to handle this.
> >>
> >> http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-usb/2009/4/20/5528164
> >
> > No, that thread is about stack vs. heap allocations, not about alignment
> > issues.
> >
> 
> Well although the issue discussed in that thread was caused by a stack
> allocation isn't the issue here the same?
> 
> My understanding is that a heap allocation as returned by kmalloc() will be:
> 1) correctly aligned for DMA
> and
> 2) in a memory zone accessible to DMA
> 
> whereas a stack allocation is not guaranteed to have either of these properties.
> 
> The problem I described in that thread was due to case 1
> (misalignment) rather than the stack memory zone not being accessible
> at all to DMA.
> To which was the reply was basically "use a heap allocation".
> 
> So the question is are hcds expected to accept arbitarilly aligned but
> heap allocated pointers (such as the result of kmalloc() + 1)?

It sounds like your HCD doesn't like this, so perhaps we should make
that rule :)

If you allocate the urb with a kmalloc() call with no offset, does it
all work properly?  The driver should be calling usb_alloc_urb() which
does this automatically for them, right?  Or is it trying to allocate
things on its own somehow?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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