On 10/4/22 9:27 AM, Bhatnagar, Rishabh wrote:
On 9/29/22, 11:23 AM, "Rishabh Bhatnagar" risbhat@amazon.com wrote:
In cases where swiotlb is enabled dma_max_mapping_size takes into account the min align mask for the device. Right now the mask is set after the max hw sectors are calculated which might result in a request size that overflows the swiotlb buffer. Set the min align mask for nvme driver before calling dma_max_mapping_size while calculating max hw sectors. Fixes: 7637de311bd2 ("nvme-pci: limit max_hw_sectors based on the DMA max mapping size") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Rishabh Bhatnagar <risbhat@amazon.com> --- Changes in V2: - Add Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> tag - Improve the commit text - Add patch version Changes in V1: - Add fixes tag drivers/nvme/host/pci.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c index 98864b853eef..30e71e41a0a2 100644 --- a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c @@ -2834,6 +2834,8 @@ static void nvme_reset_work(struct work_struct *work) nvme_start_admin_queue(&dev->ctrl); } + dma_set_min_align_mask(dev->dev, NVME_CTRL_PAGE_SIZE - 1); + /* * Limit the max command size to prevent iod->sg allocations going * over a single page. @@ -2846,7 +2848,6 @@ static void nvme_reset_work(struct work_struct *work) * Don't limit the IOMMU merged segment size. */ dma_set_max_seg_size(dev->dev, 0xffffffff); - dma_set_min_align_mask(dev->dev, NVME_CTRL_PAGE_SIZE - 1); mutex_unlock(&dev->shutdown_lock); -- 2.37.1
Hi. Any review on this patch would be much appreciated!
Thanks Rishabh
The patch already made it to Linux 6.0, so I'm not sure what we need to review again.
On 10/10/22 11:08 PM, hch@lst.de wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
The patch already made it to Linux 6.0, so I'm not sure what we need to review again.
Oh, I never got any email that this was being picked up so sent it again. Anyways thanks for taking it. We need this patch for 5.10/5.15 stable kernels as well. I can send backport patches to stable tree maintainers unless there is a way for you to mark it so that its automatically picked for stable trees.
Thanks Rishabh
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 10:05:38AM -0700, Bhatnagar, Rishabh wrote:
On 10/10/22 11:08 PM, hch@lst.de wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
The patch already made it to Linux 6.0, so I'm not sure what we need to review again.
Oh, I never got any email that this was being picked up so sent it again. Anyways thanks for taking it. We need this patch for 5.10/5.15 stable kernels as well. I can send backport patches to stable tree maintainers unless there is a way for you to mark it so that its automatically picked for stable trees.
<formletter>
This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the stable kernel tree. Please read: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html for how to do this properly.
</formletter>
On 10/11/22 11:24 AM, Greg KH wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 10:05:38AM -0700, Bhatnagar, Rishabh wrote:
On 10/10/22 11:08 PM, hch@lst.de wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
The patch already made it to Linux 6.0, so I'm not sure what we need to review again.
Oh, I never got any email that this was being picked up so sent it again. Anyways thanks for taking it. We need this patch for 5.10/5.15 stable kernels as well. I can send backport patches to stable tree maintainers unless there is a way for you to mark it so that its automatically picked for stable trees.
<formletter>
This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the stable kernel tree. Please read: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html for how to do this properly.
</formletter>
Since the original patch doesn't contain the CC:stable@vger.kernel.org, using option 2 makes sense as there is no special handling required to apply this for 5.10/5.15.
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Bhatnagar, Rishabh -
Greg KH -
hch＠lst.de