netdev - Re: [PATCH] [v6] net: emac: emac gigabit ethernet controller driver

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, 29 Jun 2016 17:04:45 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, sdharia@...eaurora.org,
	shankerd@...eaurora.org, vikrams@...eaurora.org,
	cov@...eaurora.org, gavidov@...eaurora.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
	andrew@...n.ch, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, mlangsdo@...hat.com,
	jcm@...hat.com, agross@...eaurora.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	f.fainelli@...il.com, catalin.marinas@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v6] net: emac: emac gigabit ethernet controller driver

On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 9:33:54 AM CEST Timur Tabi wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > If the ranges property lists the bus as dma capable for only the
> > lower 32 bits, then dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
> > should fail, otherwise dma_alloc_coherent() will return an invalid
> > memory area.
> 
> That seems wrong.  dma_alloc_coherent() should be smart enough to 
> restrict itself to the the dma-ranges property.  Isn't that why the 
> property exists?  When dma_alloc_coherent() looks for memory, it should 
> knows it has to create a 32-bit address.  That's why we have ZONE_DMA.

No, dma_alloc_coherent() is documented to use the dma_mask as
its reference, it's supposed to be independent of the underlying
bus.

dma-ranges is just how we communicate the limitation of the
bus to the kernel, but relying on dma-ranges itself would fail
to consider drivers that impose additional limitations, i.e.
when a device needs a smaller mask and calls 'dma_set_mask(dev,
DMA_BIT_MASK(24))' or something like that.

> > Another twist is how arm64 currently uses SWIOTLB unconditionally:
> > As long as SWIOTLB (or iommu) is enabled, dma_set_mask_and_coherent()
> > should succeed for any mask(), but not actually update the mask of the
> > device to more than the bus can handle.
> 
> That just seems like a bug in ARM64 SWIOTLB.  SWIOTLB should inject 
> itself when the driver tries to map memory outside of its DMA range.

Again, the dma mask is how swiotlb_map_*() finds whether a page
needs a bounce buffer or not, so it has to be set to whatever
the device can address.

> Without SWIOTLB/IOMMU, dma_alloc_coherent() should be aware of the 
> platform-specific limitations of each device and ensure that it only 
> allocates memory that conforms *all* limitations.  For example, if the 
> platform is capable of 64-bit DMA, but a legacy device can only handle 
> 32-bit bus addresses, then the driver should do this:
> 
> 	dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32))

That's also not how it works: each device starts out with a 32-bit mask,
because that's what historically all PCI devices can do. If a device
is 64-bit DMA capable, it can extend the mask by passing DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
(or whatever it can support), and the platform code checks if that's
possible.


	Arnd