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:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:37:23 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        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 Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:46:09AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I think my list of three different sync cases (not just two! It's not
> just about whether to sync for the CPU or the device, it's also about
> what direction the data itself is taking) is correct.
> 
> But maybe I'm wrong.

At the high level you are correct.  It is all about which direction
the data is taking.  That is the direction argument that all the
map/unmap/sync call take.  The sync calls then just toggle the ownership.
You seem to hate that ownership concept, but I don't see how things
could work without that ownership concept as we're going to be in
trouble without having that.  And yes, a peek operation could work in
some cases, but it would have to be at the cache line granularity.

arch/arc/mm/dma.c has a really good comment how these transfers relate
to actual cache operations btw>

 *
 *          |   map          ==  for_device     |   unmap     ==  for_cpu
 *          |----------------------------------------------------------------
 * TO_DEV   |   writeback        writeback      |   none          none
 * FROM_DEV |   invalidate       invalidate     |   invalidate*	  invalidate*
 * BIDIR    |   writeback+inv    writeback+inv  |   invalidate    invalidate
 *
 *     [*] needed for CPU speculative prefetches