Re: Memory corruption with CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC=y

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 17:14:47 +0100
Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In our case min_align_mask == 0 and a) is thus not applicable, because b) and
> c) we end up with iotlb_align_mask = 0x800. And because orig_add & 0x800 ==
> 0x800 but pool->start & 0x800 == 0 and the slot at index i is skipped over. The
> slot 0 is skipped over because it is page aligned, when !!((1UL << PAGE_SHIFT)
> & orig_addr) 

Wait. These mask values can quickly become confusing. Do you mean
iotlb_align_mask == 0xfff?

> Let us note that with the current implementation the min_align_size mask, that
> is mechanism a) also controls the tlb_addr within the first slot so that:
> tlb_addr & min_align_mask == orig_addr & min_align_mask. In that sense a) is
> very unlike b) and c).

It is silently assumed that PAGE_SIZE >= IO_TLB_SIZE, so if the buffer
is page-aligned, the lower bits of the alignment inside the io tlb slot
must be zero.

If the same assumption is made about alloc_align_mask, it should be
documented, but it is not.

> In our opinion the first step towards getting this right is to figure out what
> the different kinds of alignments are really supposed to mean. For each of the
> mechanisms we need to understand and document, whether making sure that the
> bounce buffer does not stretch over more of certain units of memory (like,
> pages, iova granule size, whatever), or is it about preserving offset within a
> certain unit of memory, and if yes to what extent (the least significant n-bits
> of the orig_addr dictated by the respective mask, or something different).

Seconded. I have also been struggling with the various alignment
constraints. I have even written (but not yet submitted) a patch to
calculate the combined alignment mask in swiotlb_tbl_map_single() and
pass it down to all other functions, just to make it clear what
alignment mask is used.

My understanding is that buffer alignment may be required by:

1. hardware which cannot handle an unaligned base address (presumably
   because the chip performs a simple OR operation to get the addresses
   of individual fields);

2. isolation of untrusted devices, where no two bounce buffers should
   end up in the same iova granule;

3. allocation size; I could not find an explanation, so this might be
   merely an attempt at reducing SWIOTLB internal fragmentation.

I hope other people on the Cc list can shed more light on the intended

Petr T

[Index of Archives]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux USB]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Greybus]

  Powered by Linux