linux-kernel - Re: [BUG 5.14] arm64/mm: dma memory mapping fails (in some cases)

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: <20210825103223.GE24546@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Wed, 25 Aug 2021 11:32:23 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [BUG 5.14] arm64/mm: dma memory mapping fails (in some cases)

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:28:56AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:20:46AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > Given how later we are in the -rc cycle, I suggest we revert Anshuman's
> > commit 16c9afc77660 ("arm64/mm: drop HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID") and try to
> > assess the implications in 5.15 (the patch doesn't seem to have the
> > arm64 maintainers' ack anyway ;)).
> 
> I'll stick the revert (below) into kernelci now so we can get some coverage
> in case it breaks something else.

Bah, having said that...

> diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> index fcb535560028..ee70f21a79d5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> @@ -1463,15 +1463,6 @@ static inline int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn)
>  {
>  	struct mem_section *ms;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Ensure the upper PAGE_SHIFT bits are clear in the
> -	 * pfn. Else it might lead to false positives when
> -	 * some of the upper bits are set, but the lower bits
> -	 * match a valid pfn.
> -	 */
> -	if (PHYS_PFN(PFN_PHYS(pfn)) != pfn)
> -		return 0;
> -

I suppose we should leave this bit as-is, since the whole point here is
trying to minimise the impact on other architectures.

Will