[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201028173108.GA10135@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:31:08 +0100
From: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>
To: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
Cc: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
syzbot <syzbot+34dc2fea3478e659af01@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
"christian.koenig@....com" <christian.koenig@....com>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linaro-mm-sig-owner@...ts.linaro.org"
<linaro-mm-sig-owner@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
"m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"sumit.semwal@...aro.org" <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
"syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com" <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING in dma_map_page_attrs
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 12:52:30PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
> > From: hch@....de <hch@....de>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 1:41 PM
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 05:23:48AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > Hi Christoph,
> > >
> > > > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2020 11:45 PM
> > > >
> > > > CC: rdma, looks like rdma from the stack trace
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:07:17 -0700 syzbot wrote:
> > > > > syzbot has found a reproducer for the following issue on:
> > > > >
> > > > > HEAD commit: 3cb12d27 Merge tag 'net-5.10-rc1' of
> > git://git.kernel.org/..
> > >
> > > In [1] you mentioned that dma_mask should not be set for dma_virt_ops.
> > > So patch [2] removed it.
> > >
> > > But check to validate the dma mask for all dma_ops was added in [3].
> > >
> > > What is the right way? Did I misunderstood your comment about
> > dma_mask in [1]?
> >
> > No, I did not say we don't need the mask. I said copying over the various
> > dma-related fields from the parent is bogus.
> >
> > I think rxe (and ther other drivers/infiniband/sw drivers) need a simple
> > dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent and nothing else.
>
> I see. Does below fix make sense?
> Is DMA_MASK_NONE correct?
DMA_MASK_NONE is gone in 5.10. I think you want DMA_BIT_MASK(64).
That isn't actually correct for 32-bit platforms, but good enough.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists