[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023050934-launch-shifty-0bbb@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 16:01:02 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Ruihan Li <lrh2000@....edu.cn>,
syzbot+fcf1a817ceb50935ce99@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, pasha.tatashin@...een.com,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: usbdev_mmap causes type confusion in page_table_check
On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 06:25:42AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 09:58:44PM +0800, Ruihan Li wrote:
> > static int usbdev_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > {
> > // ...
> > mem = usb_alloc_coherent(ps->dev, size, GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN,
> > &dma_handle);
> > // ...
> > if (hcd->localmem_pool || !hcd_uses_dma(hcd)) {
> > if (remap_pfn_range(vma, vma->vm_start,
> > virt_to_phys(usbm->mem) >> PAGE_SHIFT,
>
> usb_alloc_coherent and up in the DMA coherent allocator (usually
> anyway), and you absolutely must never do a virt_to_phys or virt_to_page
> on that return value. This code is a buggy as f**k.
Odd, you gave it a reviewed-by: in commit a0e710a7def4 ("USB: usbfs: fix
mmap dma mismatch") back in 2020 when it was merged as you said that was
the way to fix this up. :)
Do you have a better way to do it now that is more correct? Did some
DMA changes happen that missed this codepath getting fixed up?
thanks,
gre gk-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists