On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 05:56:40PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Indeed, once we've found an approach that everyone's happy with we can have
> a more thorough audit of exactly where else it needs to be applied. FWIW
> I'm not aware of any 32-bit Arm systems affected by this*, but if they do
> exi
On 10/07/18 19:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 06:17:16PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
diff --git a/kernel/dma/direct.c b/kernel/dma/direct.c
index 8be8106270c2..95e185347e34 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/direct.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/direct.c
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ int dma_direct_supporte
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 06:17:16PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/direct.c b/kernel/dma/direct.c
> index 8be8106270c2..95e185347e34 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/direct.c
> +++ b/kernel/dma/direct.c
> @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ int dma_direct_supported(struct device *dev, u64 mask)
>
Whilst the notion of an upstream DMA restriction is most commonly seen
via PCI host bridges saddled with a 32-bit native interface, a more
general version of the same issue can exist on complex SoCs where a bus
or point-to-point interconnect link carries fewer address bits between a
device and a do
