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  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:   Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:23:34 +0000
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Olha Cherevyk <olha.cherevyk@...il.com>,
        iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] Recent swiotlb DMA_FROM_DEVICE fixes break
 ath9k-based AP

On 2022-03-25 15:25, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:02:16 +0100
> Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>>> I'll admit I still never quite grasped the reason for also adding the
>>> override to swiotlb_sync_single_for_device() in aa6f8dcbab47, but I
>>> think by that point we were increasingly tired and confused and starting
>>> to second-guess ourselves (well, I was, at least).
>>
>> I raised the question, do we need to do the same for
>> swiotlb_sync_single_for_device(). Did that based on my understanding of the
>> DMA API documentation. I had the following scenario in mind
>>
>> SWIOTLB without the snyc_single:
>>                                    Memory      Bounce buffer      Owner
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> start                             12345678    xxxxxxxx             C
>> dma_map(DMA_FROM_DEVICE)          12345678 -> 12345678             C->D
>> device writes partial data        12345678    12ABC678 <- ABC      D
>> sync_for_cpu(DMA_FROM_DEVICE)     12ABC678 <- 12ABC678             D->C
>> cpu modifies buffer               66666666    12ABC678             C
>> sync_for_device(DMA_FROM_DEVICE)  66666666    12ABC678             C->D
>> device writes partial data        66666666    1EFGC678 <-EFG       D
>> dma_unmap(DMA_FROM_DEVICE)        1EFGC678 <- 1EFGC678             D->C
>>
>> Legend: in Owner column C stands for cpu and D for device.
>>
>> Without swiotlb, I believe we should have arrived at 6EFG6666. To get the
>> same result, IMHO, we need to do a sync in sync_for_device().
>> And aa6f8dcbab47 is an imperfect solution to that (because of size).
>>
> 
> @Robin, Christoph: Do we consider this a valid scenario?

Aha, I see it now (turns out diagrams really do help!) - so essentially 
the original situation but with buffer recycling thrown into the mix as 
well... I think it's technically valid, but do we know if anything's 
actually doing that in a way which ends up affected? For sure it would 
be nice to know that we had all bases covered without having to audit 
whether we need to, but if it's fundamentally incompatible with what 
other code expects, that we know *is* being widely used, and however 
questionable it may be we don't have an easy fix for, then we're in a 
bit of a tough spot :(

Thanks,
Robin.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists