From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolin Chen Subject: Re: [RFT][PATCH 0/7] Avoid overflow at boundary_size Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:19:00 -0700 Message-ID: <20200825231900.GA4726@Asurada-Nvidia> References: <20200820231923.23678-1-nicoleotsuka@gmail.com> <4321af30-9554-6897-5281-05afd88f2631@linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=nzT4cIv5aZloZUa85ooGLcuJKku+lTzXEIFwdhhhrM4=; b=g17iV+Lc6aSBOLe+PXWahWJW6Y2WovRbdTAFwXkgWGEBHeis8BwaGJ1/CrBTJ6wOxj UKRTRHo+JKIkjHdtn9pMcUYhCibnMervY6vIJWwS4RQlE3LSjVqmLUTaL39UbAGj4g6L 0j0826j4CHEZnT2exq6W7xhcrJUuL+xeGwEr2VpfFjtGbo9lANRsknS4EVWyKfxKl7Il /yIG9aDg8s8XYB33HFnAKY/2MhxQ2vY2S/m+geHEPThOE90LQ6W/H7XBdg78bySpsa/G t/9acHQaOTqhr0MpHdKlJO7fxd8cXHOELXVJXXUfDBije2GdrgU/aZZQogR8XNVpmWFo c4uQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4321af30-9554-6897-5281-05afd88f2631@linux.ibm.com> Sender: linux-parisc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Niklas Schnelle Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, rth@twiddle.net, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru, mattst88@gmail.com, tony.luck@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, deller@gmx.de, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, hch@lst.de, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org 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