linux-kernel - Re: Validating dma_mmap_coherent() parameters before calling (was Re: WARNING in memtype

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <83544950-e946-b696-9cf4-c7df097332b4@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 06:16:10 -0500
From:   Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+353be47c9ce21b68b7ed@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        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 5/14/20 6:14 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 06:10:03AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>>> 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 code path in question is usbdev_mmap() and the allocation is done ~13
>> lines lines before as a usb_alloc_coherent().
> 
> And did you take a look at how usb_alloc_coherent is implemented?  That
> should make it completely obvious that not all allocations come
> from dma_alloc_*.

No, your right, I noticed/remembered the usb_alloc vs dma_alloc 
difference right after sending that email, and was just about to say so.

  Sorry, you right.

> 
>> That sort of makes sense, except for the above, and the fact that I would
>> imagine the dma_mmap_coherent should be dealing with that case. I'm not
>> really clear about the details of the GCE usb device here, but my first
>> guess at this was the dma_pgprot() in dma_direct_mmap() is incorrectly
>> picking a pgprot...
> 
> No, dma_mmap_* / dma_direct_mmap has absolutely no business dealing
> with memory that did not come from the DMA allocator.
>