Hi Niklas,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:16:27PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> On 8/21/20 1:19 AM, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > We are expending the default DMA segmentation boundary to its
> > possible maximum value (ULONG_MAX) to indicate that a device
> > doesn't specify a boundary limit. So all dma_get_seg_boundary
> > callers should take a precaution with the return values since
> > it would easily get overflowed.
> >
> > I scanned the entire kernel tree for all the existing callers
> > and found that most of callers may get overflowed in two ways:
> > either "+ 1" or passing it to ALIGN() that does "+ mask".
> >
> > According to kernel defines:
> > #define ALIGN_MASK(x, mask) (((x) + (mask)) & ~(mask))
> > #define ALIGN(x, a) ALIGN_MASK(x, (typeof(x))(a) - 1)
> >
> > We can simplify the logic here:
> > ALIGN(boundary + 1, 1 << shift) >> shift
> > = ALIGN_MASK(b + 1, (1 << s) - 1) >> s
> > = {[b + 1 + (1 << s) - 1] & ~[(1 << s) - 1]} >> s
> > = [b + 1 + (1 << s) - 1] >> s
> > = [b + (1 << s)] >> s
> > = (b >> s) + 1
> >
> > So this series of patches fix the potential overflow with this
> > overflow-free shortcut.
> haven't seen any other feedback from other maintainers,
I am wondering this too...whether I sent correctly or not.
> so I guess you will resend this?
Do I need to? Though I won't mind doing so if it's necessary..
> On first glance it seems to make sense.
> I'm a little confused why it is only a "potential overflow"
> while this part
>
> "We are expending the default DMA segmentation boundary to its
> possible maximum value (ULONG_MAX) to indicate that a device
> doesn't specify a boundary limit"
>
> sounds to me like ULONG_MAX is actually used, does that
> mean there are currently no devices which do not specify a
> boundary limit?
Sorry for the confusion. We actually applied ULONG_MAX change
last week but reverted it right after, due to a bug report at
one of these "potential" overflows. So at this moment the top
of the tree doesn't set default boundary to ULONG_MAX yet.
Thanks
Nic
