netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 1/6] page_pool: frag API support for 32-bit arch with 64-bit DMA

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]

Message-ID: <CAKgT0UeSOBbXohq1rZ3YsB4abB_-5ktkLtYbDKTah8dvaojruA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:00:55 -0700
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, 
	Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>, davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, Liang Chen <liangchen.linux@...il.com>, 
	Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, 
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 1/6] page_pool: frag API support for 32-bit
 arch with 64-bit DMA

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:25 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:03:31 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > On 2023/8/22 23:38, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 17:21:35 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > >> As the CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT seems to used widely in x86/arm/mips/powerpc,
> > >> I am not sure if we can really make the above assumption.
> > >>
> > >> https://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v6.4-rc6/K/ident/CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> > >
> > > Huh, it's actually used a lot less than I anticipated!
> > >
> > > None of the x86/arm/mips/powerpc systems matter IMHO - the only _real_
> >
> > Is there any particular reason that you think that the above systems does
> > not really matter?
>
> Not the systems themselves but the combination of a 32b arch with
> an address space >16TB. All those arches have 64b equivalent, seems
> logical to use the 64b version for a system with a large address space.
> If we're talking about a system which ends up running Linux.
>
> > As we have made a similar wrong assumption about those arches before, I am
> > really trying to be more cautious about it.
> >
> > I searched through the web, some seems to be claiming that "32-bits is DEAD",
> > I am not sure if there is some common agreement among the kernel community,
> > is there any previous discussion about that?
>
> My suspicion/claim is that 32 + PAGE_SHIFT should be enough bits for
> any 32b platform.

One additional thing we could consider would be to simply look at
having page_pool enforce a DMA mask for the device to address any
cases where we might not be able to fit the address. Then in the
unlikely event that somebody is running a 32b system with over 16
terabytes of RAM. With that the DMA subsystem would handle it for us
and we wouldn't have to worry so much about it.