[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200514063158.GA8780@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 08:31:58 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+353be47c9ce21b68b7ed@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, jeremy.linton@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: Validating dma_mmap_coherent() parameters before calling (was
Re: WARNING in memtype_reserve)
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 08:27:50AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 08:14:17AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Guys, can you please start formal thread on this? I have no
> > idea where this came from and what the rationale is. Btw, if the
> > pfn is crap in dma_direct_mmap then the dma_addr_t passed in is
> > crap, as it is derived from that. What is the caller, and how is
> > this triggered?
>
>
> Ok, to summarize, commit 2bef9aed6f0e ("usb: usbfs: correct kernel->user
> page attribute mismatch") changed a call from remap_pfn_range() to
> dma_mmap_coherent() for usb data buffers being sent from userspace.
I only need to look at the commit for 3 seconds to tell you that it is
completely buggy. While using dma_mmap_coherent is fundamentally the
right thing and absolutely required for dma_alloc_* allocations, USB
also uses it's own local gen pool allocator or plain kmalloc for not
DMA capable controller. This need to use remap_pfn_range. I'm pretty
sure you hit one of those cases.
The logic should be something like:
if (hcd->localmem_pool || !hcd_uses_dma(hcd))
remap_pfn_range()
else
dma_mmap_coherent()
Powered by blists - more mailing lists