When a PTE is cleared, the write may be teared or perform by multiple
writes. In addition, in 32-bit kernel, writes are currently performed
using a single 64-bit write, which does not guarantee order.

The byte-code right now does not seem to cause a problem, but it may
still occur in the future.

Avoid this scenario by using WRITE_ONCE, and order the writes on
32-bit kernels.

Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <[email protected]>

---
V3: Move split_dma_pte struct to dma_clear_pte (Joerg)
    Add comments (Joerg)
V2: Use two WRITE_ONCE on 32-bit to avoid reordering
---
 drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
index e1852e8..5df87a3 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
@@ -328,7 +328,28 @@ struct dma_pte {
 
 static inline void dma_clear_pte(struct dma_pte *pte)
 {
-       pte->val = 0;
+       /*
+        * We want to prevent the compiler from doing store-tearing or multiple
+        * writes when it clears the PTE. Otherwise, a DMA address may be
+        * translated using a partially updated PTE.
+        */
+#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
+       WRITE_ONCE(pte->val, 0);
+#else
+       /*
+        * On 32-bit platform the PTE must be updated in two chunks. We first
+        * update the lower part that holds the present bit. The two writes are
+        * ordered in the byte-code by WRITE_ONCE, and in the execution by x86
+        * TSO-like memory model. This allows us to avoid using dma_wmb().
+        */
+       struct split_dma_pte {
+               u32 val_low;
+               u32 val_high;
+       } __packed *sdma_pte = (struct split_dma_pte *)pte;
+
+       WRITE_ONCE(sdma_pte->val_low, 0);
+       WRITE_ONCE(sdma_pte->val_high, 0);
+#endif
 }
 
 static inline u64 dma_pte_addr(struct dma_pte *pte)
-- 
2.7.4

_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to