lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Memory corruption with CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC=y
From
On 11/8/2023 11:52 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 19:59:49 +0100
> Petr Tesařík <petr@tesarici.cz> wrote:
>
>>> Not sure how to properly fix this as the different alignment
>>> requirements get pretty complex quickly. So would appreciate your
>>> input.
>>
>> I don't think it's possible to improve the allocation logic without
>> modifying the page allocator and/or the DMA atomic pool allocator to
>> take additional constraints into account.
>
> I don't understand. What speaks against calculating the amount of space
> needed, so that with the waste we can still fit the bounce-buffer in the
> pool?
>
> I believe alloc_size + combined_mask is a trivial upper bound, but we can
> do slightly better since we know that we allocate pages.
>
> For the sake of simplicity let us assume we only have the min_align_mask
> requirement. Then I believe the worst case is that we need
> (orig_addr & min_align_mask & PAGE_MASK) + (min_align_mask & ~PAGE_MASK)
> extra space to fit.
>
> Depending on how the semantics pan out one may be able to replace
> min_align_mask with combined_mask.
>
> Is your point that for large combined_mask values
> _get_free_pages(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN, required_order) is not
> likely to complete successfully?

Yes, that's the reason. OTOH it's probably worth a try. The point is
that mapping a DMA buffer is allowed to fail, so callers should be
prepared anyway.

And for the case you reported initially, I don't think there is any need
to preserve bit 11 (0x800) from the original buffer's physical address,
which is enough to fix it. See also my other email earlier today.

Petr T

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-11-20 13:52    [W:0.073 / U:0.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site