[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e077b229-c92b-c9a6-3581-61329c4b4a4b@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 18:42:19 +0000
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
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 18:15, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 07:02:16PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>> If
>>>> ddbd89deb7d3 alone turns out to work OK then I'd be inclined to try a
>>>> partial revert of just that one hunk.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not against being pragmatic and doing the partial revert. But as
>>> explained above, I do believe for correctness of swiotlb we ultimately
>>> do need that change. So if the revert is the short term solution,
>>> what should be our mid-term road-map?
>>
>> Unless I'm misunderstanding this thread we found the bug in ath9k
>> and have a fix for that now?
>
> According to Maxim's comment on the other subthread, that ath9k patch
> wouldn't work on all platforms (and constitutes a bit of a violation of
> the DMA API ownership abstraction). So not quite, I think?
Indeed, it would potentially stand to pose the same problem as the
SWIOTLB change, but on the scale of individual cache lines touched by
ath9k_hw_process_rxdesc_edma() rather than the whole buffer. However,
that might represent a less severe impact on a smaller number of users
(maybe the MIPS systems? I'm not sure...) so perhaps it's an acceptable
tourniquet? Note that the current code is already a violation of the DMA
API (because the device keeps writing even when it doesn't have
ownership), so there's not a very strong argument in that regard.
Thanks,
Robin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists