Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote on Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:16:43AM -0400: > The beaty of 'devel' and 'linux-next' is that they can be reshuffled and > mangled. I pushed them original patch from Bumyong there and will let > it sit for a day and then create a stable branch and give it to Linus. Thanks, that should be good. Do you want me to send a follow-up patch with the two extra checks (tlb_addr & (IO_TLB_SIZE -1)) > swiotlb_align_offset(dev, orig_addr) tlb_offset < alloc_size or are we certain this can't ever happen? (I didn't see any hit in dmesg when I ran with these, but my opinion is better safe than sorry...) > Then I need to expand the test-regression bucket so that this does not > happen again. Dominique, how easy would it be to purchase one of those > devices? My company is making such a device, but it's not on the market yet (was planned for august, with some delay in approvisionning it'll probably be a bit late), and would mean buying from Japan so I'm not sure how convenient that would be... These are originally NXP devices so I assume Horia would have better suggestions, if you would? > I was originally thinking to create a crypto device in QEMU to simulate > this but that may take longer to write than just getting the real thing. > > Or I could create some fake devices with weird offsets and write a driver > for it to exercise this.. like this one I had done some time ago that > needs some brushing off. Just a fake device with fake offsets as a test is probably good enough, ideally would need to exerce both failures we've seen (offset in dma_sync_single_for_device like caam does and in the original mapping (I assume?) like the NVMe driver does), but that sounds possible :) Thanks again! -- Dominique
