On 2022-06-23 08:00, Dexuan Cui wrote:
From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 10:44 PM
To: Dexuan Cui <[email protected]>
...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 12:14:24PM -0700, Dexuan Cui wrote:
The third parameter of dma_set_encrypted() is a size in bytes rather than
the number of pages.
Fixes: 4d0564785bb0 ("dma-direct: factor out dma_set_{de,en}crypted
helpers")
Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <[email protected]>
see:
commit 4a37f3dd9a83186cb88d44808ab35b78375082c9 (tag:
dma-mapping-5.19-2022-05-25)
Author: Robin Murphy <[email protected]>
Date: Fri May 20 18:10:13 2022 +0100
dma-direct: don't over-decrypt memory
It looks like commit 4a37f3dd9a831 fixed a different issue?
Here my patch is for the latest mainline:
In dma_direct_alloc()'s error handling path, we pass 'size' to
dma_set_encrypted():
out_encrypt_pages:
if (dma_set_encrypted(dev, page_address(page), size))
However, in dma_direct_free(), we pass ' 1 << page_order ' to
dma_set_encrypted().
I think the ' 1 << page_order' is incorrect and it should be 'size' as well?
I think technically you're both right - these instances clearly have a
history tracing back to the original bug that my patch addressed, but
the refactoring then made them into their own distinct bug in terms of
the internal dma_set_encrypted() interface, per the commit message here.
Apparently I failed to spot this when forward-porting 4a37f3dd9a831 from
5.10 (as the commit message says, don't ask... ;) ) - I guess I was only
looking at where the set_memory_*() callsites had moved to. For this patch,
Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <[email protected]>
Thanks
Robin.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
