[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4vwahy5pb74an2nebp643s2doacbrslrsitolzksmmjnv4lxxu@vub4gpex5fcs>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:41:46 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Ekansh Gupta <quic_ekangupt@...cinc.com>
Cc: srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, quic_bkumar@...cinc.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
quic_chennak@...cinc.com, stable <stable@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/11] misc: fastrpc: Fix remote heap alloc and free
user request
On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 10:29:29PM +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote:
> A static PD daemon process can request for remote heap allocation
> which will allocate memory and change the ownership if the VMID
> information were defined. This allocations are currently getting
> added to fl mmaps list which could get freed when there is any
> daemon kill. There is no way to request for freeing of this memory
> also. Add changes to maintain the remote heap allocation in the
Simpler. 'Maintain foo'
> static PD specific structure and add method to free the memory
> on user request.
Should this be split into two patches? 'foo and bar' suggests that.
>
> Fixes: 532ad70c6d44 ("misc: fastrpc: Add mmap request assigning for static PD pool")
> Cc: stable <stable@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ekansh Gupta <quic_ekangupt@...cinc.com>
> ---
> drivers/misc/fastrpc.c | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c b/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
> index 68c1595446d5..32f2e6f625ed 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
> @@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ struct fastrpc_buf {
> struct dma_buf *dmabuf;
> struct device *dev;
> void *virt;
> + u32 flag;
> u64 phys;
> u64 size;
> /* Lock for dma buf attachments */
> @@ -1924,29 +1925,54 @@ static int fastrpc_get_dsp_info(struct fastrpc_user *fl, char __user *argp)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int fastrpc_req_munmap_impl(struct fastrpc_user *fl, struct fastrpc_buf *buf)
> +static int fastrpc_req_munmap_dsp(struct fastrpc_user *fl, uintptr_t raddr, u64 size)
> {
> struct fastrpc_invoke_args args[1] = { [0] = { 0 } };
> struct fastrpc_munmap_req_msg req_msg;
> - struct device *dev = fl->sctx->dev;
> int err;
> u32 sc;
>
> req_msg.pgid = fl->tgid;
> - req_msg.size = buf->size;
> - req_msg.vaddr = buf->raddr;
> + req_msg.size = size;
> + req_msg.vaddr = raddr;
>
> args[0].ptr = (u64) (uintptr_t) &req_msg;
> args[0].length = sizeof(req_msg);
> -
> sc = FASTRPC_SCALARS(FASTRPC_RMID_INIT_MUNMAP, 1, 0);
> err = fastrpc_internal_invoke(fl, true, FASTRPC_INIT_HANDLE, sc,
> &args[0]);
> +
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> +static int fastrpc_req_munmap_impl(struct fastrpc_user *fl, struct fastrpc_buf *buf)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = fl->sctx->dev;
> + int err;
> +
> + err = fastrpc_req_munmap_dsp(fl, buf->raddr, buf->size);
> if (!err) {
> + if (buf->flag == ADSP_MMAP_REMOTE_HEAP_ADDR) {
> + if (fl->cctx->vmcount) {
> + u64 src_perms = 0;
> + struct qcom_scm_vmperm dst_perms;
> + u32 i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < fl->cctx->vmcount; i++)
> + src_perms |= BIT(fl->cctx->vmperms[i].vmid);
> +
> + dst_perms.vmid = QCOM_SCM_VMID_HLOS;
> + dst_perms.perm = QCOM_SCM_PERM_RWX;
> + err = qcom_scm_assign_mem(buf->phys, (u64)buf->size,
> + &src_perms, &dst_perms, 1);
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to assign memory phys 0x%llx size 0x%llx err %d\n",
> + buf->phys, buf->size, err);
> + return err;
> + }
It looks like this is too nested. Consider refactoring this code. For
example, extract the function that you have c&p'ed.
> + }
> + }
> dev_dbg(dev, "unmmap\tpt 0x%09lx OK\n", buf->raddr);
> - spin_lock(&fl->lock);
> - list_del(&buf->node);
> - spin_unlock(&fl->lock);
> fastrpc_buf_free(buf);
> } else {
> dev_err(dev, "unmmap\tpt 0x%09lx ERROR\n", buf->raddr);
> @@ -1960,6 +1986,7 @@ static int fastrpc_req_munmap(struct fastrpc_user *fl, char __user *argp)
> struct fastrpc_buf *buf = NULL, *iter, *b;
> struct fastrpc_req_munmap req;
> struct device *dev = fl->sctx->dev;
> + int err = 0;
Why =0 is necessary?
>
> if (copy_from_user(&req, argp, sizeof(req)))
> return -EFAULT;
> @@ -1968,18 +1995,45 @@ static int fastrpc_req_munmap(struct fastrpc_user *fl, char __user *argp)
> list_for_each_entry_safe(iter, b, &fl->mmaps, node) {
> if ((iter->raddr == req.vaddrout) && (iter->size == req.size)) {
> buf = iter;
> + list_del(&buf->node);
> break;
> }
> }
> spin_unlock(&fl->lock);
>
> - if (!buf) {
> - dev_err(dev, "mmap\t\tpt 0x%09llx [len 0x%08llx] not in list\n",
> - req.vaddrout, req.size);
> - return -EINVAL;
> + if (buf) {
> + err = fastrpc_req_munmap_impl(fl, buf);
> + if (err) {
> + spin_lock(&fl->lock);
> + list_add_tail(&buf->node, &fl->mmaps);
> + spin_unlock(&fl->lock);
> + }
> + return err;
> }
>
> - return fastrpc_req_munmap_impl(fl, buf);
> + spin_lock(&fl->lock);
> + if (fl->spd) {
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(iter, b, &fl->spd->rmaps, node) {
> + if ((iter->raddr == req.vaddrout) && (iter->size == req.size)) {
> + buf = iter;
> + list_del(&buf->node);
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&fl->lock);
> + if (buf) {
> + err = fastrpc_req_munmap_impl(fl, buf);
> + if (err) {
> + spin_lock(&fl->lock);
> + list_add_tail(&buf->node, &fl->spd->rmaps);
> + spin_unlock(&fl->lock);
> + }
> + return err;
> + }
> + dev_err(dev, "buffer not found addr 0x%09lx, len 0x%08llx\n",
> + req.vaddrout, req.size);
Can this be triggered by the user? If so, it's dev_dbg() at best.
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> static int fastrpc_req_mmap(struct fastrpc_user *fl, char __user *argp)
> @@ -2008,15 +2062,34 @@ static int fastrpc_req_mmap(struct fastrpc_user *fl, char __user *argp)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (req.flags == ADSP_MMAP_REMOTE_HEAP_ADDR)
> + if (req.flags == ADSP_MMAP_REMOTE_HEAP_ADDR) {
> + if (!fl->spd || !fl->spd->ispdup) {
> + dev_err(dev, "remote heap request supported only for active static PD\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> err = fastrpc_remote_heap_alloc(fl, dev, req.size, &buf);
> - else
> + } else {
> err = fastrpc_buf_alloc(fl, dev, req.size, &buf);
> + }
>
> if (err) {
> dev_err(dev, "failed to allocate buffer\n");
> return err;
> }
> + buf->flag = req.flags;
> +
> + /* Add memory to static PD pool, protection through hypervisor */
> + if ((req.flags == ADSP_MMAP_REMOTE_HEAP_ADDR) && fl->cctx->vmcount) {
> + u64 src_perms = BIT(QCOM_SCM_VMID_HLOS);
> +
> + err = qcom_scm_assign_mem(buf->phys, (u64)buf->size,
> + &src_perms, fl->cctx->vmperms, fl->cctx->vmcount);
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(fl->sctx->dev, "Failed to assign memory phys 0x%llx size 0x%llx err %d\n",
> + buf->phys, buf->size, err);
misaligned
> + goto err_invoke;
> + }
> + }
>
> req_msg.pgid = fl->tgid;
> req_msg.flags = req.flags;
> @@ -2049,26 +2122,16 @@ static int fastrpc_req_mmap(struct fastrpc_user *fl, char __user *argp)
> /* let the client know the address to use */
> req.vaddrout = rsp_msg.vaddr;
>
> - /* Add memory to static PD pool, protection thru hypervisor */
> - if (req.flags == ADSP_MMAP_REMOTE_HEAP_ADDR && fl->cctx->vmcount) {
> - u64 src_perms = BIT(QCOM_SCM_VMID_HLOS);
> -
> - err = qcom_scm_assign_mem(buf->phys, (u64)buf->size,
> - &src_perms, fl->cctx->vmperms, fl->cctx->vmcount);
> - if (err) {
> - dev_err(fl->sctx->dev, "Failed to assign memory phys 0x%llx size 0x%llx err %d",
> - buf->phys, buf->size, err);
> - goto err_assign;
> - }
> - }
> -
> spin_lock(&fl->lock);
> - list_add_tail(&buf->node, &fl->mmaps);
> + if (req.flags == ADSP_MMAP_REMOTE_HEAP_ADDR)
> + list_add_tail(&buf->node, &fl->spd->rmaps);
> + else
> + list_add_tail(&buf->node, &fl->mmaps);
> spin_unlock(&fl->lock);
>
> if (copy_to_user((void __user *)argp, &req, sizeof(req))) {
> err = -EFAULT;
> - goto err_assign;
> + goto err_copy;
> }
>
> dev_dbg(dev, "mmap\t\tpt 0x%09lx OK [len 0x%08llx]\n",
> @@ -2076,8 +2139,12 @@ static int fastrpc_req_mmap(struct fastrpc_user *fl, char __user *argp)
>
> return 0;
>
> -err_assign:
> +err_copy:
> + spin_lock(&fl->lock);
> + list_del(&buf->node);
> + spin_unlock(&fl->lock);
> fastrpc_req_munmap_impl(fl, buf);
> + buf = NULL;
> err_invoke:
> fastrpc_buf_free(buf);
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists