From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)" <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>
Cc: "Christian Borntraeger" <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
"Alexander Gordeev" <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
"Vasily Gorbik" <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
"Heiko Carstens" <hca@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] dma: swiotlb: Remove SWIOTLB_ANY
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2026 10:35:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260904103533.DCC191F00AC4@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260904101810.1193505-5-aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Inverting the default SWIOTLB allocation behavior from `memblock_alloc_low()` to `memblock_alloc()` breaks DMA for legacy 32-bit devices on x86 systems with `iommu=off` when memory encryption or `swiotlb=force` is used.
--
commit 35955ff88ad01e61df3c901065f4e509abaab7d0
Author: Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>
dma: swiotlb: Remove SWIOTLB_ANY
SWIOTLB_ANY permits the swiotlb pool to be allocated outside the
architecture's low address limit. This is already implied when
SWIOTLB_INIT_ADDRESSING_LIMIT is not set, making SWIOTLB_ANY redundant.
Use SWIOTLB_INIT_ADDRESSING_LIMIT as the sole indication that the
default pool and any dynamically allocated pools must reside below
ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT. Otherwise, allow the pools to use any directly
mapped memory.
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> index c4611b2c45403..2715833a21f8a 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> @@ -448,15 +448,10 @@ static void __init *swiotlb_memblock_alloc(unsigned long nslabs,
> size_t bytes = PAGE_ALIGN(nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT);
> void *tlb;
>
> - /*
> - * By default allocate the bounce buffer memory from low memory, but
> - * allow to pick a location everywhere for hypervisors with guest
> - * memory encryption.
> - */
> - if (flags & SWIOTLB_ANY)
> - tlb = memblock_alloc(bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
> - else
> + if (flags & SWIOTLB_INIT_ADDRESSING_LIMIT)
> tlb = memblock_alloc_low(bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
> + else
> + tlb = memblock_alloc(bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
[Severity: High]
Does inverting the default SWIOTLB allocation behavior from memblock_alloc_low()
to memblock_alloc() break DMA for legacy 32-bit devices on x86 systems?
If a system boots with iommu=off and swiotlb=force (or memory encryption),
pci_swiotlb_detect() leaves x86_swiotlb_flags as 0 because no_iommu is true:
arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c:pci_swiotlb_detect() {
/* don't initialize swiotlb if iommu=off (no_iommu=1) */
if (!no_iommu && max_possible_pfn > MAX_DMA32_PFN) {
x86_swiotlb_enable = true;
x86_swiotlb_flags |= SWIOTLB_INIT_ADDRESSING_LIMIT;
}
...
}
Because SWIOTLB_INIT_ADDRESSING_LIMIT is not set, this new logic uses
memblock_alloc() instead of the previous memblock_alloc_low(), placing the
bounce buffer pool anywhere, including above 4GB.
Legacy 32-bit devices will then fail DMA mappings because they receive bounce
buffers allocated above 4GB, failing dma_capable() checks and causing
swiotlb_map() to return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR.
[ ... ]
> @@ -598,10 +593,10 @@ void __init swiotlb_init_remap(unsigned int flags,
> #ifdef CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC
> if (!remap)
> io_tlb_default_mem.can_grow = true;
> - if (flags & SWIOTLB_ANY)
> - io_tlb_default_mem.phys_limit = virt_to_phys(high_memory - 1);
> - else
> + if (flags & SWIOTLB_INIT_ADDRESSING_LIMIT)
> io_tlb_default_mem.phys_limit = ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT;
> + else
> + io_tlb_default_mem.phys_limit = virt_to_phys(high_memory - 1);
> #endif
[Severity: High]
Similarly, does this incorrectly record an unrestricted phys_limit for the pool
when SWIOTLB_INIT_ADDRESSING_LIMIT is missing under the same iommu=off
conditions?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260904101810.1193505-1-aneesh.kumar@kernel.org?part=4
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-04 10:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-04 10:18 [PATCH v3 0/4] dma: swiotlb: Centralize default pool policy and sizing Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-09-04 10:18 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] dma: swiotlb: Centralize default pool policy selection Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-09-04 10:40 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-04 10:18 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] dma: swiotlb: Centralize minimal pool sizing Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-09-04 10:31 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-04 10:18 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] dma: swiotlb: Centralize memory-encryption " Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-09-04 10:36 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-04 10:18 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] dma: swiotlb: Remove SWIOTLB_ANY Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-09-04 10:35 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
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=20260904103533.DCC191F00AC4@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@kernel.org \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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