On 2020-09-15 10:26 a.m., Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:11:51AM -0400, Thomas Tai wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2020-09-15 10:07 a.m., Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 08:03:14AM -0600, Thomas Tai wrote:
>>>> When booting the kernel v5.9-rc4 on a VM, the kernel would panic when
>>>> printing a warning message in swiotlb_map(). It is because dev->dma_mask
>>>> can potentially be a null pointer. Using the dma_get_mask() macro can
>>>> avoid the NULL pointer dereference.
>>>
>>> dma_mask must not be zero. This means drm is calling DMA API functions
>>> on something weird. This needs to be fixed in the caller.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, Christoph for your comment. The caller already fixed the null
>> pointer in the latest v5.9-rc5. I am thinking that if we had used the
>> dma_get_mask(), the kernel couldn't panic and could properly print out the
>> warning message.
>
> If we want to solve this something like this patch is probably the
> right way:
>
>
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-direct.h b/include/linux/dma-direct.h
> index 6e87225600ae35..064870844f06c1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/dma-direct.h
> +++ b/include/linux/dma-direct.h
> @@ -62,9 +62,6 @@ static inline bool dma_capable(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t addr, size_t size,
> {
> dma_addr_t end = addr + size - 1;
>
> - if (!dev->dma_mask)
> - return false;
> -
I am concerned that some drivers may rely on this NULL checking. Would
you think we can keep this checking and use the following WARN_ON_ONCE()?
> if (is_ram && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT) &&
> min(addr, end) < phys_to_dma(dev, PFN_PHYS(min_low_pfn)))
> return false;
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/mapping.c b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
> index 0d129421e75fc8..2b01d8f7baf160 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/mapping.c
> +++ b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
> @@ -144,6 +144,10 @@ dma_addr_t dma_map_page_attrs(struct device *dev, struct page *page,
> dma_addr_t addr;
>
> BUG_ON(!valid_dma_direction(dir));
> +
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!dev->dma_mask))
> + return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;
> +
> if (dma_map_direct(dev, ops))
> addr = dma_direct_map_page(dev, page, offset, size, dir, attrs);
> else
> @@ -179,6 +183,10 @@ int dma_map_sg_attrs(struct device *dev, struct scatterlist *sg, int nents,
> int ents;
>
> BUG_ON(!valid_dma_direction(dir));
> +
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!dev->dma_mask))
> + return 0;
> +
> if (dma_map_direct(dev, ops))
> ents = dma_direct_map_sg(dev, sg, nents, dir, attrs);
> else
> @@ -217,6 +225,9 @@ dma_addr_t dma_map_resource(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t phys_addr,
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(pfn_valid(PHYS_PFN(phys_addr))))
> return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!dev->dma_mask))
> + return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;
> +
> if (dma_map_direct(dev, ops))
> addr = dma_direct_map_resource(dev, phys_addr, size, dir, attrs);
> else if (ops->map_resource)
>
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:40:39AM -0400, Thomas Tai wrote:
>> +++ b/include/linux/dma-direct.h
>> @@ -62,9 +62,6 @@ static inline bool dma_capable(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t addr, size_t size,
>> {
>> dma_addr_t end = addr + size - 1;
>> - if (!dev->dma_mask)
>> - return false;
>> -
>
> I am concerned that some drivers may rely on this NULL checking. Would you
> think we can keep this checking and use the following WARN_ON_ONCE()?
dma_capable is not a helper for drivers, but just for dma-direct
and related code. And this patch adds the checks for the three
places how we call into the ->map* methods.
On 2020-09-15 11:09 a.m., Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:40:39AM -0400, Thomas Tai wrote:
>>> +++ b/include/linux/dma-direct.h
>>> @@ -62,9 +62,6 @@ static inline bool dma_capable(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t addr, size_t size,
>>> {
>>> dma_addr_t end = addr + size - 1;
>>> - if (!dev->dma_mask)
>>> - return false;
>>> -
>>
>> I am concerned that some drivers may rely on this NULL checking. Would you
>> think we can keep this checking and use the following WARN_ON_ONCE()?
>
> dma_capable is not a helper for drivers, but just for dma-direct
> and related code. And this patch adds the checks for the three
> places how we call into the ->map* methods.
>
Ok. That sounds good to me. I will make the suggested changes and run
some tests before sending out the V2 patch.
Thank you,
Thomas
On 2020-09-15 11:09 a.m., Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:40:39AM -0400, Thomas Tai wrote:
>>> +++ b/include/linux/dma-direct.h
>>> @@ -62,9 +62,6 @@ static inline bool dma_capable(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t addr, size_t size,
>>> {
>>> dma_addr_t end = addr + size - 1;
>>> - if (!dev->dma_mask)
>>> - return false;
>>> -
>>
>> I am concerned that some drivers may rely on this NULL checking. Would you
>> think we can keep this checking and use the following WARN_ON_ONCE()?
>
> dma_capable is not a helper for drivers, but just for dma-direct
> and related code. And this patch adds the checks for the three
> places how we call into the ->map* methods.
>
Hi Christoph,
I tried out the suggested changes, and it successfully warned the null
pointer without panic. I notice that there are some places outside the
dma-direct, which calls dma_capable().
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9-rc5/source/arch/x86/kernel/amd_gart_64.c#L187
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9-rc5/source/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c#L387
Also, if I remove the null checking in dma_capable(), I may run into the
risk of a null pointer dereference within the function.
@@ -62,9 +62,6 @@ static inline bool dma_capable(struct device *dev,
dma_addr_t addr, size_t size,
{
dma_addr_t end = addr + size - 1;
- if (!dev->dma_mask)
- return false;
-
if (is_ram && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT) &&
min(addr, end) < phys_to_dma(dev, PFN_PHYS(min_low_pfn)))
return false;
return end <= min_not_zero(*dev->dma_mask, dev->bus_dma_limit);
^
|
** risk of a null dereference **
}
Given that the WARN_ON_ONCE already did the intended warning, would you
be ok that I keep the null checking in dma_capable()?
Thank you,
Thomas
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 04:46:17PM -0400, Thomas Tai wrote:
> I tried out the suggested changes, and it successfully warned the null
> pointer without panic. I notice that there are some places outside the
> dma-direct, which calls dma_capable().
>
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9-rc5/source/arch/x86/kernel/amd_gart_64.c#L187
>
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9-rc5/source/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c#L387
All of these still come in throught the wrappers in kernel/dma/mapping.c.
> Given that the WARN_ON_ONCE already did the intended warning, would you be
> ok that I keep the null checking in dma_capable()?
No, the generic dma mapping layer is the right place.