Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 04:17:01 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Cc:     Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
        hch@infradead.org, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
        jxgao@google.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] swiotlb: avoid potential left shift overflow
Message-ID: <YwNlrVUYAC/pDmYX@infradead.org>
References: <20220819084537.52374-1-chao.gao@intel.com>
 <38c58aa0-11c7-f553-95fd-292fd4944a75@oracle.com>
 <YwA8DttmM7wgYuHv@gao-cwp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YwA8DttmM7wgYuHv@gao-cwp>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 09:42:38AM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> In an internal effort to measure the impact of swiotlb size to IO
> performance of confidential VM (e.g., TDX VM), we simply added
> SWIOTLB_ANY to the default io_tlb_mem to lift the restriction on swiotlb
> size. Then we hit this issue and worked out this fix. I posted this
> fix because I think the fix by itself is helpful because it removes the
> implicit dependency of the left-shift in slot_addr() on swiotlb size and
> then someone trying to lift the size limitation won't hit the same issue.

SWIOTLB_ANY is used for real, so I think this is a legitimate fix.
I'll apply it.