public inbox for linux-coco@lists.linux.dev
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)" <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	will@kernel.org, robin.murphy@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
	steven.price@arm.com, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-direct: Validate DMA mask against canonical DMA addresses
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 09:26:57 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260120132657.GO961572@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260120064255.179425-1-aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 12:12:54PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) wrote:
> On systems that apply an address encryption tag or mask to DMA addresses,
> DMA mask validation must be performed against the canonical DMA address.
> Using a non-canonical (e.g. encrypted or unencrypted) DMA address
> can incorrectly fail capability checks, since architecture-specific
> encryption bits are not part of the device’s actual DMA addressing
> capability. For example, arm64 adds PROT_NS_SHARED to unencrypted DMA
> addresses.

Huh?

static inline dma_addr_t phys_to_dma_direct(struct device *dev,
                phys_addr_t phys)
{
        if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev))
                return phys_to_dma_unencrypted(dev, phys);
        return phys_to_dma(dev, phys);
}

dma_addr_t swiotlb_map(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size,
                enum dma_data_direction dir, unsigned long attrs)
{
[..]

        /* Ensure that the address returned is DMA'ble */
        dma_addr = phys_to_dma_unencrypted(dev, swiotlb_addr);
[..]
        return dma_addr;
}

The check in dma_direct_supported() is checking if the device's HW
capability can contain the range of dma_addr_t's the DMA API will
generate. Since it above is generating dma_addr_t's with the
PROT_NS_SHARED set, it is correct to check it against the mask.

If the IOVA does not contain PROT_NS_SHARED then I would expect all of
the above to be removed too?

Can you please explain what the probem is better?

I just had a long talk with our internal people about this very
subject and they were adament that the ARM design had the T=0 SMMU S2
configured so that the IOVA starts at PROT_NS_SHARED, not 0. I am
against this, I think it is a bad choice, and this patch is showing
exactly why :)

IMHO you should map the T=0 S2 so that the IOVA starts at 0 and we
don't add PROT_NS_SHARED to the IOVA anyhwere.

This logic is going to be wrong for T=1 DMA to private memory though.

Jason

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-01-20 13:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-20  6:42 [PATCH 1/2] dma-direct: Validate DMA mask against canonical DMA addresses Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-01-20  6:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] dma-direct: Make phys_to_dma() pick encrypted vs unencrypted per device Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-01-20  9:33   ` kernel test robot
2026-01-20 10:49   ` kernel test robot
2026-01-20  9:59 ` [PATCH 1/2] dma-direct: Validate DMA mask against canonical DMA addresses Suzuki K Poulose
2026-01-20 11:59   ` Robin Murphy
2026-01-20 14:25     ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2026-01-20 19:22       ` Robin Murphy
2026-01-21  4:50         ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2026-01-20 14:18   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2026-01-20 14:39     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2026-01-20 15:11       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-01-20 17:11         ` Robin Murphy
2026-01-20 17:54           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-01-20 18:47             ` Robin Murphy
2026-01-20 19:54               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-01-20 10:59 ` kernel test robot
2026-01-20 13:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2026-01-20 15:25   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2026-01-20 15:43     ` Jason Gunthorpe

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260120132657.GO961572@ziepe.ca \
    --to=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=steven.price@arm.com \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox