Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 27 Mar 2022 05:48:48 +0200
From:   Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Toke =?UTF-8?B?SMO4aWxhbmQtSsO4cmdlbnNlbg==?= <toke@toke.dk>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Maxime Bizon <mbizon@freebox.fr>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Olha Cherevyk <olha.cherevyk@gmail.com>,
        iommu <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] Recent swiotlb DMA_FROM_DEVICE fixes break
 ath9k-based AP
Message-ID: <20220327054848.1a545b12.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whUQCCaQXJt3KUeQ8mtnLeVXEScNXCp+_DYh2SNY7EcEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1812355.tdWV9SEqCh@natalenko.name>
        <f88ca616-96d1-82dc-1bc8-b17480e937dd@arm.com>
        <20220324055732.GB12078@lst.de>
        <4386660.LvFx2qVVIh@natalenko.name>
        <81ffc753-72aa-6327-b87b-3f11915f2549@arm.com>
        <878rsza0ih.fsf@toke.dk>
        <4be26f5d8725cdb016c6fdd9d05cfeb69cdd9e09.camel@freebox.fr>
        <20220324163132.GB26098@lst.de>
        <d8a1cbf4-a521-78ec-1560-28d855e0913e@arm.com>
        <871qyr9t4e.fsf@toke.dk>
        <CAHk-=whUQCCaQXJt3KUeQ8mtnLeVXEScNXCp+_DYh2SNY7EcEA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: IBM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 12:26:53 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> So I don't think the dma_sync_single_for_device() is *wrong* per se,
> because the CPU didn't actually do any modifications.
> 
> But yes, I think it's unnecessary - because any later CPU accesses
> would need that dma_sync_single_for_cpu() anyway, which should
> invalidate any stale caches.
> 
> And it clearly doesn't work in a bounce-buffer situation, but honestly
> I don't think a "CPU modified buffers concurrently with DMA" can
> *ever* work in that situation, so I think it's wrong for a bounce
> buffer model to ever do anything in the dma_sync_single_for_device()
> situation.

I agree it CPU modified buffers *concurrently* with DMA can never work,
and I believe the ownership model was conceived to prevent this
situation. But a CPU can modify the buffer *after* DMA has written to
it, while the mapping is still alive. For example one could do one
partial read from the device, *after* the DMA is done,
sync_for_cpu(DMA_FROM_DEVICE), examine, then zero out the entire buffer,
sync_for_device(DMA_FROM_DEVICE), make the device do partial DMA, do
dma_unmap and expect no residue from the fist DMA. That is expect that
the zeroing out was effective.

The point I'm trying to make is: if concurrent is even permitted (it
isn't because of ownership) swiotlb woudn't know if we are dealing with
the *concurrent* case, which is completely bogous, or with the
*sequential* case, which at least in theory could work. And if we don't
do anyting on the sync_for_device(DMA_FROM_DEVICE) we render
that zeroing out the entire buffer form my example ineffective, because
it would not reach the bounce buffer, and on dma_unmap we would overwrite
the original buffer with the content of the bounce buffer.

Regards,
Halil