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 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 08:15:29 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@....de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>,
        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

From: Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: 28 March 2022 07:37
> 
> 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.

I don't think it is really 'ownership' but more about who has
write access.
Only one side can have write access (to a cache line [1]) at any
one time.

Read access is different.
You need a 'synchronise' action to pick up newly written data.
This might be a data copy, cache flush or cache invalidate.
It only need affect the area that needs to be read - not
full buffer.
Partial cache flush/invalidate will almost certainly speed
up receipt of short network packets that are copied into a
new skb - leaving the old one mapped for another receive.

[1] The cache line size might be a property of the device
and dma subsystem, not just the cpu.
I have used hardware when the effective size was 1kB.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)