[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170413221055.GE17774@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:10:55 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jroedel@...e.de, will.deacon@....com,
Robin.Murphy@....com, vgupta@...opsys.com,
m.szyprowski@...sung.com, bart.vanassche@...disk.com,
benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org, krzk@...nel.org,
niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se, sricharan@...eaurora.org,
vinod.koul@...el.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
dledford@...hat.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
mauricfo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dma-mapping: add check for coherent DMA memory
without struct page
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 03:47:56PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> When coherent DMA memory without struct page is shared, importer
> fails to find the page and runs into kernel page fault when it
> tries to dmabuf_ops_attach/map_sg/map_page the invalid page found
> in the sg_table.
>
> Add a new dma_check_dev_coherent() interface to check if memory is
> from the device coherent area. There is no way to tell where the
> memory returned by dma_alloc_attrs() came from.
>
> arm_dma_get_sgtable() checks for invalid pages, however this check
> could pass even for memory obtained the coherent allocator. Add an
> additional check to call dma_check_dev_coherent() to confirm that it
> is indeed the coherent DMA memory and fail the sgtable creation with
> -EINVAL.
Sorry, this doesn't make much sense to me.
pfn_valid(pfn) must *never* return true if 'pfn' does not have a struct
page associated with it. If it returns true (so we allow
arm_dma_get_sgtable() to succeed) then we know we have a valid struct
page in the supplied scatterlist.
> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c | 11 ++++++++---
> drivers/base/dma-coherent.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
> index 475811f..27c7d9a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
> @@ -954,9 +954,14 @@ int arm_dma_get_sgtable(struct device *dev, struct sg_table *sgt,
> struct page *page;
> int ret;
>
> - /* If the PFN is not valid, we do not have a struct page */
> - if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
> - return -ENXIO;
> + /*
> + * If the PFN is not valid, we do not have a struct page
> + * As this check can pass even for memory obtained through
> + * the coherent allocator, do an additional check to determine
> + * if this is coherent DMA memory.
> + */
> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn) && dma_check_dev_coherent(dev, handle, cpu_addr))
> + return -EINVAL;
Right, so what this says is:
if we do not haev a valid PFN
_and_ if the memory is from the coherent section
_then_ fail
Why the extra check? Under what circunstances do we end up with memory
where the PFN is valid, but we do not have a valid struct page. It
seems to me that such a scenario is a bug in pfn_valid() and not
something that should be worked around like this.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists