netdev - Re: [REGRESSION] Recent swiotlb DMA_FROM_DEVICE fixes break ath9k-based AP

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:   Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:45:39 +0000
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>,
        mbizon@...ebox.fr, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        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 16:25, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Maxime Bizon <mbizon@...ebox.fr> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, 2022-03-24 at 12:26 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's actually very natural in that situation to flush the caches from
>>> the CPU side again. And so dma_sync_single_for_device() is a fairly
>>> reasonable thing to do in that situation.
>>>
>>
>> In the non-cache-coherent scenario, and assuming dma_map() did an
>> initial cache invalidation, you can write this:
>>
>> rx_buffer_complete_1(buf)
>> {
>> 	invalidate_cache(buf, size)
>> 	if (!is_ready(buf))
>> 		return;
>> 	<proceed with receive>
>> }
>>
>> or
>>
>> rx_buffer_complete_2(buf)
>> {
>> 	if (!is_ready(buf)) {
>> 		invalidate_cache(buf, size)
>> 		return;
>> 	}
>> 	<proceed with receive>
>> }
>>
>> The latter is preferred for performance because dma_map() did the
>> initial invalidate.
>>
>> Of course you could write:
>>
>> rx_buffer_complete_3(buf)
>> {
>> 	invalidate_cache(buf, size)
>> 	if
>> (!is_ready(buf)) {
>> 		invalidate_cache(buf, size)
>> 		return;
>> 	}
>> 	
>> <proceed with receive>
>> }
>>
>>
>> but it's a waste of CPU cycles
>>
>> So I'd be very cautious assuming sync_for_cpu() and sync_for_device()
>> are both doing invalidation in existing implementation of arch DMA ops,
>> implementers may have taken some liberty around DMA-API to avoid
>> unnecessary cache operation (not to blame them).
> 
> I sense an implicit "and the driver can't (or shouldn't) influence
> this" here, right?

Right, drivers don't get a choice of how a given DMA API implementation 
works.

>> For example looking at arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c, for DMA_FROM_DEVICE
>>
>> sync_single_for_device()
>>    => __dma_page_cpu_to_dev()
>>      => dma_cache_maint_page(op=dmac_map_area)
>>        => cpu_cache.dma_map_area()
>>
>> sync_single_for_cpu()
>>    => __dma_page_dev_to_cpu()
>>      =>
>> __dma_page_cpu_to_dev(op=dmac_unmap_area)
>>        =>
>> cpu_cache.dma_unmap_area()
>>
>> dma_map_area() always does cache invalidate.
>>
>> But for a couple of CPU variant, dma_unmap_area() is a noop, so
>> sync_for_cpu() does nothing.
>>
>> Toke's patch will break ath9k on those platforms (mostly silent
>> breakage, rx corruption leading to bad performance)
> 
> Okay, so that would be bad obviously. So if I'm reading you correctly
> (cf my question above), we can't fix this properly from the driver side,
> and we should go with the partial SWIOTLB revert instead?

Do you have any other way of telling if DMA is idle, or temporarily 
pausing it before the sync_for_cpu, such that you could honour the 
notion of ownership transfer properly? As mentioned elsewhere I suspect 
the only "real" fix if you really do need to allow concurrent access is 
to use the coherent DMA API for buffers rather than streaming mappings, 
but that's obviously some far more significant surgery.

Robin.