The commit c50f11c6196f ("arm64: mm: Don't invalidate FROM_DEVICE
buffers at start of DMA transfer") replaces invalidate with clean
when DMA_FROM_DEVICE, this changes the behavior of functions like
dma_map_single() and dma_sync_single_for_device(*, *, *, DMA_FROM_DEVICE),
then it may make some drivers works unwell because the implementation
of these DMA APIs lose the original cache invalidation.
Situation 1:
We can see that a lot of drivers in mainline have called the
dma_sync_single_for_device(*, *, *, DMA_FROM_DEVICE) for sync,
they would get cache invalidated before implementation changed,
but now they got cache clean, which may violate the original
expectation of the drivers and result in errors.
Situation 2:
After backporting the above commit, we find a network card driver go
wrong with cache inconsistency when doing DMA transfer: CPU got the
stale data in cache when reading DMA data received from device.
A similar phenomenon happens on sata disk drivers, it involves
mainline modules like libata, scsi, ahci etc, and is hard to find
out which line of code results in the error.
It seems that some dirvers may go wrong and have to match the
implementation changes of the DMA APIs, and it would be confused
because the behavior of these DMA APIs on arm64 are different
from other archs.
Add invalidate back in arch_sync_dma_for_device() to keep drivers
compatible by replace dcache_clean_poc with dcache_clean_inval_poc
when DMA_FROM_DEVICE.
Fixes: c50f11c6196f ("arm64: mm: Don't invalidate FROM_DEVICE buffers at start of DMA transfer")
Signed-off-by: Nanyong Sun <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
index 3cb101e8cb29..07f6a3089c64 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
@@ -18,7 +18,10 @@ void arch_sync_dma_for_device(phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size,
{
unsigned long start = (unsigned long)phys_to_virt(paddr);
- dcache_clean_poc(start, start + size);
+ if (dir == DMA_FROM_DEVICE)
+ dcache_clean_inval_poc(start, start + size);
+ else
+ dcache_clean_poc(start, start + size);
}
void arch_sync_dma_for_cpu(phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size,
--
2.25.1
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 07:33, Nanyong Sun <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The commit c50f11c6196f ("arm64: mm: Don't invalidate FROM_DEVICE
> buffers at start of DMA transfer") replaces invalidate with clean
> when DMA_FROM_DEVICE, this changes the behavior of functions like
> dma_map_single() and dma_sync_single_for_device(*, *, *, DMA_FROM_DEVICE),
> then it may make some drivers works unwell because the implementation
> of these DMA APIs lose the original cache invalidation.
>
> Situation 1:
...
> Situation 2:
> After backporting the above commit, we find a network card driver go
> wrong with cache inconsistency when doing DMA transfer: CPU got the
> stale data in cache when reading DMA data received from device.
I suppose this means those drivers may lack dma_sync_single_for_cpu()
calls after the inbound transfers complete, and are instead relying on
the cache invalidation performed before the transfer to make the DMA'd
data visible to the CPU.
This is buggy and fragile, and should be fixed in any case. There is
no guarantee that the CPU will not preload parts of the buffer into
the cache while DMA is in progress, so the invalidation must occur
strictly after the device has finished transferring the data.
> A similar phenomenon happens on sata disk drivers, it involves
> mainline modules like libata, scsi, ahci etc, and is hard to find
> out which line of code results in the error.
>
Could you identify the actual hardware and drivers that you are
observing the issue on? Claiming that everything is broken is not very
helpful in narrowing it down (although I am not saying you are wrong
:-))
> It seems that some dirvers may go wrong and have to match the
> implementation changes of the DMA APIs, and it would be confused
> because the behavior of these DMA APIs on arm64 are different
> from other archs.
>
> Add invalidate back in arch_sync_dma_for_device() to keep drivers
> compatible by replace dcache_clean_poc with dcache_clean_inval_poc
> when DMA_FROM_DEVICE.
>
So notably, the patch in question removes cache invalidation *without*
clean, and what you are adding here is clean+invalidate. (Invalidation
without clean may undo the effect of, e.g., the memzero() of a secret
in memory, and so it is important that we don't add that back if we
can avoid it)
Since we won't lose the benefits of that change, incorporating
invalidation at this point should be fine: clean+invalidate shouldn't
be more expensive than clean, and [correctly written] drivers will
invalidate those lines anyway, as the data has to come from DRAM in
any case.
So unless fixing the drivers in question is feasible, this change
seems reasonable to me.
> Fixes: c50f11c6196f ("arm64: mm: Don't invalidate FROM_DEVICE buffers at start of DMA transfer")
> Signed-off-by: Nanyong Sun <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
> index 3cb101e8cb29..07f6a3089c64 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
> @@ -18,7 +18,10 @@ void arch_sync_dma_for_device(phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size,
> {
> unsigned long start = (unsigned long)phys_to_virt(paddr);
>
> - dcache_clean_poc(start, start + size);
> + if (dir == DMA_FROM_DEVICE)
> + dcache_clean_inval_poc(start, start + size);
> + else
> + dcache_clean_poc(start, start + size);
> }
>
> void arch_sync_dma_for_cpu(phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size,
> --
> 2.25.1
>
On 2022-11-17 08:24, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 07:33, Nanyong Sun <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> The commit c50f11c6196f ("arm64: mm: Don't invalidate FROM_DEVICE
>> buffers at start of DMA transfer") replaces invalidate with clean
>> when DMA_FROM_DEVICE, this changes the behavior of functions like
>> dma_map_single() and dma_sync_single_for_device(*, *, *, DMA_FROM_DEVICE),
>> then it may make some drivers works unwell because the implementation
>> of these DMA APIs lose the original cache invalidation.
>>
>> Situation 1:
> ...
>> Situation 2:
>> After backporting the above commit, we find a network card driver go
>> wrong with cache inconsistency when doing DMA transfer: CPU got the
>> stale data in cache when reading DMA data received from device.
>
> I suppose this means those drivers may lack dma_sync_single_for_cpu()
> calls after the inbound transfers complete, and are instead relying on
> the cache invalidation performed before the transfer to make the DMA'd
> data visible to the CPU.
It also commonly goes wrong the other way round when the drivers are
correct but DT/ACPI failed to indicate a coherent device as such. If
writes from the device actually snoop, they hit the still-present cache
line, which then gets invalidated by unmap/sync_for_cpu and the new data
is lost.
Robin.
On 2022/11/17 18:23, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-11-17 08:24, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 07:33, Nanyong Sun <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The commit c50f11c6196f ("arm64: mm: Don't invalidate FROM_DEVICE
>>> buffers at start of DMA transfer") replaces invalidate with clean
>>> when DMA_FROM_DEVICE, this changes the behavior of functions like
>>> dma_map_single() and dma_sync_single_for_device(*, *, *,
>>> DMA_FROM_DEVICE),
>>> then it may make some drivers works unwell because the implementation
>>> of these DMA APIs lose the original cache invalidation.
>>>
>>> Situation 1:
>> ...
>>> Situation 2:
>>> After backporting the above commit, we find a network card driver go
>>> wrong with cache inconsistency when doing DMA transfer: CPU got the
>>> stale data in cache when reading DMA data received from device.
>>
>> I suppose this means those drivers may lack dma_sync_single_for_cpu()
>> calls after the inbound transfers complete, and are instead relying on
>> the cache invalidation performed before the transfer to make the DMA'd
>> data visible to the CPU.
>
> It also commonly goes wrong the other way round when the drivers are
> correct but DT/ACPI failed to indicate a coherent device as such. If
> writes from the device actually snoop, they hit the still-present
> cache line, which then gets invalidated by unmap/sync_for_cpu and the
> new data is lost.
>
> Robin.
>
> .
Is it acceptable? Does the coherent device MUST run with coherent
identifier? At least they can run with no wrong before.
On 2022/11/17 16:24, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 07:33, Nanyong Sun <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The commit c50f11c6196f ("arm64: mm: Don't invalidate FROM_DEVICE
>> buffers at start of DMA transfer") replaces invalidate with clean
>> when DMA_FROM_DEVICE, this changes the behavior of functions like
>> dma_map_single() and dma_sync_single_for_device(*, *, *, DMA_FROM_DEVICE),
>> then it may make some drivers works unwell because the implementation
>> of these DMA APIs lose the original cache invalidation.
>>
>> Situation 1:
> ...
>> Situation 2:
>> After backporting the above commit, we find a network card driver go
>> wrong with cache inconsistency when doing DMA transfer: CPU got the
>> stale data in cache when reading DMA data received from device.
> I suppose this means those drivers may lack dma_sync_single_for_cpu()
> calls after the inbound transfers complete, and are instead relying on
> the cache invalidation performed before the transfer to make the DMA'd
> data visible to the CPU.
>
> This is buggy and fragile, and should be fixed in any case. There is
> no guarantee that the CPU will not preload parts of the buffer into
> the cache while DMA is in progress, so the invalidation must occur
> strictly after the device has finished transferring the data.
>
>> A similar phenomenon happens on sata disk drivers, it involves
>> mainline modules like libata, scsi, ahci etc, and is hard to find
>> out which line of code results in the error.
>>
> Could you identify the actual hardware and drivers that you are
> observing the issue on? Claiming that everything is broken is not very
> helpful in narrowing it down (although I am not saying you are wrong
> :-))
The hardware combination is ARM64 with SATA disk，but not every product of
this combination has the DMA problem, and the related drivers seems right,
so I am currently checking whether the DT or ACPI indicate device's
coherent attribute uncorrectly.
(The scenario that Robin proposed in another email:
===============================================================
It also commonly goes wrong the other way round when the drivers are
correct but DT/ACPI failed to indicate a coherent device as such.
If writes from the device actually snoop, they hit the still-present
cache line, which then gets invalidated by unmap/sync_for_cpu and the
new data is lost.
Robin.
===============================================================
)
>> It seems that some dirvers may go wrong and have to match the
>> implementation changes of the DMA APIs, and it would be confused
>> because the behavior of these DMA APIs on arm64 are different
>> from other archs.
>>
>> Add invalidate back in arch_sync_dma_for_device() to keep drivers
>> compatible by replace dcache_clean_poc with dcache_clean_inval_poc
>> when DMA_FROM_DEVICE.
>>
> So notably, the patch in question removes cache invalidation *without*
> clean, and what you are adding here is clean+invalidate. (Invalidation
> without clean may undo the effect of, e.g., the memzero() of a secret
> in memory, and so it is important that we don't add that back if we
> can avoid it)
>
> Since we won't lose the benefits of that change, incorporating
> invalidation at this point should be fine: clean+invalidate shouldn't
> be more expensive than clean, and [correctly written] drivers will
> invalidate those lines anyway, as the data has to come from DRAM in
> any case.
>
> So unless fixing the drivers in question is feasible, this change
> seems reasonable to me.
Agree with you and I have some questions:
1. I am not very clear that how to fix the drivers? Before the patch in
question, the behaviors of DMA APIs are like this:
map for_cpu for_device unmap
TO_DEV writeback none writeback none
TO_CPU invalidate invalidate* invalidate invalidate*
BIDIR writeback invalidate writeback invalidate
(Reference from:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/)
and now the behaviors on arm64 become this:
map for_cpu for_device unmap
TO_DEV writeback none writeback none
TO_CPU -> [writeback] invalidate* ->[writeback] invalidate*
BIDIR writeback invalidate writeback invalidate
Can we confirm that these changes are acceptable on the ARM64?
I counted the drivers on the Linux mainline and there are at least 123
places of code have called
dma_sync_single_for_device(*, *, *, DMA_FROM_DEVICE), one of them like this:
drivers/net/ethernet/sun/cassini.c:
cas_rx_process_pkt():
dma_sync_single_for_cpu(&cp->pdev->dev, page->dma_addr
+ off,
i, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
addr = cas_page_map(page->buffer);
memcpy(p, addr + off, i);
dma_sync_single_for_device(&cp->pdev->dev,
page->dma_addr + off, i,
DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
Are they correct?
- If they are, they may be affected by the implementation change, then
how to fix them?
- Or these codes are needless on arm64 so they won't be affected?
2. Finding the drivers which do not strictly follow the DMA API rule is
expensive, they used to run with no problem
because they called the DMA APIs that will do the same invalidate thing
like dma_sync_single_for_cpu(), but now they have risks,
so every DMA users should check the drivers, including in tree,
out-of-tree and binary-only drivers.
We also need to check the DTS and ACPI to prevent the case that Robin
mentioned.
And are there any other scenarios we haven't thought of that need to be
checked?
That will be a huge and difficult workload for DMA users, and based on
they know the influence of that patch.
So, adding invalidate back in arch_sync_dma_for_device() seems more
friendly, cheap and harmless, the behaviors on arm64 will be this:
map for_cpu for_device unmap
TO_DEV writeback none writeback none
TO_CPU wback+inv invalidate* wback+inv invalidate*
BIDIR writeback invalidate writeback invalidate
>> Fixes: c50f11c6196f ("arm64: mm: Don't invalidate FROM_DEVICE buffers at start of DMA transfer")
>> Signed-off-by: Nanyong Sun <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c | 5 ++++-
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
>> index 3cb101e8cb29..07f6a3089c64 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
>> @@ -18,7 +18,10 @@ void arch_sync_dma_for_device(phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size,
>> {
>> unsigned long start = (unsigned long)phys_to_virt(paddr);
>>
>> - dcache_clean_poc(start, start + size);
>> + if (dir == DMA_FROM_DEVICE)
>> + dcache_clean_inval_poc(start, start + size);
>> + else
>> + dcache_clean_poc(start, start + size);
>> }
>>
>> void arch_sync_dma_for_cpu(phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size,
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
> .
On 2022-11-20 02:59, Nanyong Sun wrote:
> On 2022/11/17 16:24, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 07:33, Nanyong Sun <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The commit c50f11c6196f ("arm64: mm: Don't invalidate FROM_DEVICE
>>> buffers at start of DMA transfer") replaces invalidate with clean
>>> when DMA_FROM_DEVICE, this changes the behavior of functions like
>>> dma_map_single() and dma_sync_single_for_device(*, *, *,
>>> DMA_FROM_DEVICE),
>>> then it may make some drivers works unwell because the implementation
>>> of these DMA APIs lose the original cache invalidation.
>>>
>>> Situation 1:
>> ...
>>> Situation 2:
>>> After backporting the above commit, we find a network card driver go
>>> wrong with cache inconsistency when doing DMA transfer: CPU got the
>>> stale data in cache when reading DMA data received from device.
>> I suppose this means those drivers may lack dma_sync_single_for_cpu()
>> calls after the inbound transfers complete, and are instead relying on
>> the cache invalidation performed before the transfer to make the DMA'd
>> data visible to the CPU.
>>
>> This is buggy and fragile, and should be fixed in any case. There is
>> no guarantee that the CPU will not preload parts of the buffer into
>> the cache while DMA is in progress, so the invalidation must occur
>> strictly after the device has finished transferring the data.
>>
>>> A similar phenomenon happens on sata disk drivers, it involves
>>> mainline modules like libata, scsi, ahci etc, and is hard to find
>>> out which line of code results in the error.
>>>
>> Could you identify the actual hardware and drivers that you are
>> observing the issue on? Claiming that everything is broken is not very
>> helpful in narrowing it down (although I am not saying you are wrong
>> :-))
> The hardware combination is ARM64 with SATA disk，but not every product of
> this combination has the DMA problem, and the related drivers seems right,
> so I am currently checking whether the DT or ACPI indicate device's
> coherent attribute uncorrectly.
> (The scenario that Robin proposed in another email:
> ===============================================================
> It also commonly goes wrong the other way round when the drivers are
> correct but DT/ACPI failed to indicate a coherent device as such.
> If writes from the device actually snoop, they hit the still-present
> cache line, which then gets invalidated by unmap/sync_for_cpu and the
> new data is lost.
> Robin.
> ===============================================================
> )
>>> It seems that some dirvers may go wrong and have to match the
>>> implementation changes of the DMA APIs, and it would be confused
>>> because the behavior of these DMA APIs on arm64 are different
>>> from other archs.
>>>
>>> Add invalidate back in arch_sync_dma_for_device() to keep drivers
>>> compatible by replace dcache_clean_poc with dcache_clean_inval_poc
>>> when DMA_FROM_DEVICE.
>>>
>> So notably, the patch in question removes cache invalidation *without*
>> clean, and what you are adding here is clean+invalidate. (Invalidation
>> without clean may undo the effect of, e.g., the memzero() of a secret
>> in memory, and so it is important that we don't add that back if we
>> can avoid it)
>>
>> Since we won't lose the benefits of that change, incorporating
>> invalidation at this point should be fine: clean+invalidate shouldn't
>> be more expensive than clean, and [correctly written] drivers will
>> invalidate those lines anyway, as the data has to come from DRAM in
>> any case.
>>
>> So unless fixing the drivers in question is feasible, this change
>> seems reasonable to me.
> Agree with you and I have some questions:
> 1. I am not very clear that how to fix the drivers? Before the patch in
> question, the behaviors of DMA APIs are like this:
>
> map for_cpu for_device unmap
> TO_DEV writeback none writeback none
> TO_CPU invalidate invalidate* invalidate invalidate*
> BIDIR writeback invalidate writeback invalidate
>
> (Reference from:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/)
>
> and now the behaviors on arm64 become this:
>
> map for_cpu for_device unmap
> TO_DEV writeback none writeback none
> TO_CPU -> [writeback] invalidate* ->[writeback] invalidate*
> BIDIR writeback invalidate writeback invalidate
>
> Can we confirm that these changes are acceptable on the ARM64?
>
> I counted the drivers on the Linux mainline and there are at least 123
> places of code have called
> dma_sync_single_for_device(*, *, *, DMA_FROM_DEVICE), one of them like
> this:
> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/cassini.c:
> cas_rx_process_pkt():
> dma_sync_single_for_cpu(&cp->pdev->dev, page->dma_addr
> + off,
> i, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
> addr = cas_page_map(page->buffer);
> memcpy(p, addr + off, i);
> dma_sync_single_for_device(&cp->pdev->dev,
> page->dma_addr + off, i,
> DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
>
> Are they correct?
Yes.
In the non-coherent scenario here, dma_sync_single_for_cpu() invalidates
any previously-fetched cachelines to ensure that the latest data written
to DRAM by the device is visible to the CPU. There is no writeback
because those cachelines can only be clean, not dirty - the device is
non-coherent, so is not updating the cache, and the contract of the DMA
API says that nothing else may write to the same address at the same
time. The subsequent dma_sync_single_for_device() doesn't actually need
to do anything, because the whole transfer is DMA_FROM_DEVICE - even
though the buffer was almost certainly fetched into some level of cache
by the memcpy() reading from it, that's fine. The device will write the
next packet to DRAM, and those (clean) cachelines will be invalidated by
dma_sync_single_for_cpu() when we start the whole cycle again.
> - If they are, they may be affected by the implementation change, then
> how to fix them?
> - Or these codes are needless on arm64 so they won't be affected?
>
> 2. Finding the drivers which do not strictly follow the DMA API rule is
> expensive, they used to run with no problem
> because they called the DMA APIs that will do the same invalidate thing
> like dma_sync_single_for_cpu(), but now they have risks,
> so every DMA users should check the drivers, including in tree,
> out-of-tree and binary-only drivers.
> We also need to check the DTS and ACPI to prevent the case that Robin
> mentioned.
> And are there any other scenarios we haven't thought of that need to be
> checked?
>
> That will be a huge and difficult workload for DMA users, and based on
> they know the influence of that patch.
>
> So, adding invalidate back in arch_sync_dma_for_device() seems more
> friendly, cheap and harmless, the behaviors on arm64 will be this:
>
> map for_cpu for_device unmap
> TO_DEV writeback none writeback none
> TO_CPU wback+inv invalidate* wback+inv invalidate*
> BIDIR writeback invalidate writeback invalidate
But then DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL is still wrong, and even if you bodge the
syncs even further to make that appear to work on an
incorrectly-configured system, dma_alloc_coherent() will still be at
risk of losing coherency in ways that cannot be fixed at all, except by
fixing the firmware to remove the source of the problem.
In practice, driver bugs tend to be fairly easy to weed out with options
like CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG and "swiotlb=force", and given that we can't
reliably or completely work around broken firmware, I'd argue that it's
better *not* to try to hide these issues, to increase the likelihood
that they'll be noticed by developers earlier. As happened again today,
in fact:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/[email protected]/
Thanks,
Robin.
>>> Fixes: c50f11c6196f ("arm64: mm: Don't invalidate FROM_DEVICE buffers
>>> at start of DMA transfer")
>>> Signed-off-by: Nanyong Sun <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c | 5 ++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
>>> index 3cb101e8cb29..07f6a3089c64 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
>>> @@ -18,7 +18,10 @@ void arch_sync_dma_for_device(phys_addr_t paddr,
>>> size_t size,
>>> {
>>> unsigned long start = (unsigned long)phys_to_virt(paddr);
>>>
>>> - dcache_clean_poc(start, start + size);
>>> + if (dir == DMA_FROM_DEVICE)
>>> + dcache_clean_inval_poc(start, start + size);
>>> + else
>>> + dcache_clean_poc(start, start + size);
>>> }
>>>
>>> void arch_sync_dma_for_cpu(phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size,
>>> --
>>> 2.25.1
>>>
>> .
Hi Will,
What do you think about this?
I have another question: are there actual programs or scenarios
which can utilize the 2 problems fixed by the
commit c50f11c6196f ("arm64: mm: Don't invalidate FROM_DEVICE buffers at
start of DMA transfer")?
We want to evaluate the actual impact of this pach.
On 2022/11/25 4:04, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-11-20 02:59, Nanyong Sun wrote:
>> On 2022/11/17 16:24, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 07:33, Nanyong Sun <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The commit c50f11c6196f ("arm64: mm: Don't invalidate FROM_DEVICE
>>>> buffers at start of DMA transfer") replaces invalidate with clean
>>>> when DMA_FROM_DEVICE, this changes the behavior of functions like
>>>> dma_map_single() and dma_sync_single_for_device(*, *, *,
>>>> DMA_FROM_DEVICE),
>>>> then it may make some drivers works unwell because the implementation
>>>> of these DMA APIs lose the original cache invalidation.
>>>>
>>>> Situation 1:
>>> ...
>>>> Situation 2:
>>>> After backporting the above commit, we find a network card driver go
>>>> wrong with cache inconsistency when doing DMA transfer: CPU got the
>>>> stale data in cache when reading DMA data received from device.
>>> I suppose this means those drivers may lack dma_sync_single_for_cpu()
>>> calls after the inbound transfers complete, and are instead relying on
>>> the cache invalidation performed before the transfer to make the DMA'd
>>> data visible to the CPU.
>>>
>>> This is buggy and fragile, and should be fixed in any case. There is
>>> no guarantee that the CPU will not preload parts of the buffer into
>>> the cache while DMA is in progress, so the invalidation must occur
>>> strictly after the device has finished transferring the data.
>>>
>>>> A similar phenomenon happens on sata disk drivers, it involves
>>>> mainline modules like libata, scsi, ahci etc, and is hard to find
>>>> out which line of code results in the error.
>>>>
>>> Could you identify the actual hardware and drivers that you are
>>> observing the issue on? Claiming that everything is broken is not very
>>> helpful in narrowing it down (although I am not saying you are wrong
>>> :-))
>> The hardware combination is ARM64 with SATA disk，but not every
>> product of
>> this combination has the DMA problem, and the related drivers seems
>> right,
>> so I am currently checking whether the DT or ACPI indicate device's
>> coherent attribute uncorrectly.
>> (The scenario that Robin proposed in another email:
>> ===============================================================
>> It also commonly goes wrong the other way round when the drivers are
>> correct but DT/ACPI failed to indicate a coherent device as such.
>> If writes from the device actually snoop, they hit the still-present
>> cache line, which then gets invalidated by unmap/sync_for_cpu and the
>> new data is lost.
>> Robin.
>> ===============================================================
>> )
>>>> It seems that some dirvers may go wrong and have to match the
>>>> implementation changes of the DMA APIs, and it would be confused
>>>> because the behavior of these DMA APIs on arm64 are different
>>>> from other archs.
>>>>
>>>> Add invalidate back in arch_sync_dma_for_device() to keep drivers
>>>> compatible by replace dcache_clean_poc with dcache_clean_inval_poc
>>>> when DMA_FROM_DEVICE.
>>>>
>>> So notably, the patch in question removes cache invalidation *without*
>>> clean, and what you are adding here is clean+invalidate. (Invalidation
>>> without clean may undo the effect of, e.g., the memzero() of a secret
>>> in memory, and so it is important that we don't add that back if we
>>> can avoid it)
>>>
>>> Since we won't lose the benefits of that change, incorporating
>>> invalidation at this point should be fine: clean+invalidate shouldn't
>>> be more expensive than clean, and [correctly written] drivers will
>>> invalidate those lines anyway, as the data has to come from DRAM in
>>> any case.
>>>
>>> So unless fixing the drivers in question is feasible, this change
>>> seems reasonable to me.
>> Agree with you and I have some questions:
>> 1. I am not very clear that how to fix the drivers? Before the patch
>> in question, the behaviors of DMA APIs are like this:
>>
>> map for_cpu for_device unmap
>> TO_DEV writeback none writeback none
>> TO_CPU invalidate invalidate* invalidate invalidate*
>> BIDIR writeback invalidate writeback invalidate
>>
>> (Reference from:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/)
>>
>> and now the behaviors on arm64 become this:
>>
>> map for_cpu for_device
>> unmap
>> TO_DEV writeback none writeback none
>> TO_CPU -> [writeback] invalidate* ->[writeback] invalidate*
>> BIDIR writeback invalidate writeback invalidate
>>
>> Can we confirm that these changes are acceptable on the ARM64?
>>
>> I counted the drivers on the Linux mainline and there are at least
>> 123 places of code have called
>> dma_sync_single_for_device(*, *, *, DMA_FROM_DEVICE), one of them
>> like this:
>> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/cassini.c:
>> cas_rx_process_pkt():
>> dma_sync_single_for_cpu(&cp->pdev->dev, page->dma_addr + off,
>> i, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
>> addr = cas_page_map(page->buffer);
>> memcpy(p, addr + off, i);
>> dma_sync_single_for_device(&cp->pdev->dev,
>> page->dma_addr + off, i,
>> DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
>>
>> Are they correct?
>
> Yes.
>
> In the non-coherent scenario here, dma_sync_single_for_cpu()
> invalidates any previously-fetched cachelines to ensure that the
> latest data written to DRAM by the device is visible to the CPU. There
> is no writeback because those cachelines can only be clean, not dirty
> - the device is non-coherent, so is not updating the cache, and the
> contract of the DMA API says that nothing else may write to the same
> address at the same time. The subsequent dma_sync_single_for_device()
> doesn't actually need to do anything, because the whole transfer is
> DMA_FROM_DEVICE - even though the buffer was almost certainly fetched
> into some level of cache by the memcpy() reading from it, that's fine.
> The device will write the next packet to DRAM, and those (clean)
> cachelines will be invalidated by dma_sync_single_for_cpu() when we
> start the whole cycle again.
So all of the dma_sync_single_for_device(*, *, *, DMA_FROM_DEVICE) are
unnecessary?
>
>> - If they are, they may be affected by the implementation change,
>> then how to fix them?
>> - Or these codes are needless on arm64 so they won't be affected?
>>
>> 2. Finding the drivers which do not strictly follow the DMA API rule
>> is expensive, they used to run with no problem
>> because they called the DMA APIs that will do the same invalidate
>> thing like dma_sync_single_for_cpu(), but now they have risks,
>> so every DMA users should check the drivers, including in tree,
>> out-of-tree and binary-only drivers.
>> We also need to check the DTS and ACPI to prevent the case that Robin
>> mentioned.
>> And are there any other scenarios we haven't thought of that need to
>> be checked?
>>
>> That will be a huge and difficult workload for DMA users, and based
>> on they know the influence of that patch.
>>
>> So, adding invalidate back in arch_sync_dma_for_device() seems more
>> friendly, cheap and harmless, the behaviors on arm64 will be this:
>>
>> map for_cpu for_device
>> unmap
>> TO_DEV writeback none writeback none
>> TO_CPU wback+inv invalidate* wback+inv invalidate*
>> BIDIR writeback invalidate writeback invalidate
>
> But then DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL is still wrong, and even if you bodge the
> syncs even further to make that appear to work on an
> incorrectly-configured system, dma_alloc_coherent() will still be at
> risk of losing coherency in ways that cannot be
But only DMA_FROM_DEVICE is affected, if something wrong with
DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL, it would appear early before.
Why dma_alloc_coherent() will be at risk of losing coherency?
> fixed at all, except by fixing the firmware to remove the source of
> the problem.
>
> In practice, driver bugs tend to be fairly easy to weed out with
> options like CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG and "swiotlb=force", and given that
> we can't reliably or completely work around broken firmware, I'd argue
> that it's better *not* to try to hide these issues, to increase the
> likelihood that they'll be noticed by developers earlier. As happened
> again today, in fact:
>
I am afraid that it is not so easy in practice, at least we have to try
every dma-related hardware component of every product, and check the
drivers, DTS/ACPI.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/[email protected]/
>
>
> Thanks,
> Robin.
>
>>>> Fixes: c50f11c6196f ("arm64: mm: Don't invalidate FROM_DEVICE
>>>> buffers at start of DMA transfer")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nanyong Sun <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c | 5 ++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
>>>> index 3cb101e8cb29..07f6a3089c64 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
>>>> @@ -18,7 +18,10 @@ void arch_sync_dma_for_device(phys_addr_t paddr,
>>>> size_t size,
>>>> {
>>>> unsigned long start = (unsigned long)phys_to_virt(paddr);
>>>>
>>>> - dcache_clean_poc(start, start + size);
>>>> + if (dir == DMA_FROM_DEVICE)
>>>> + dcache_clean_inval_poc(start, start + size);
>>>> + else
>>>> + dcache_clean_poc(start, start + size);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> void arch_sync_dma_for_cpu(phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size,
>>>> --
>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>
>>> .
>
> .