Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 14:44:45 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+353be47c9ce21b68b7ed@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        jeremy.linton@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARNING in memtype_reserve
Message-ID: <20200513124445.GA1082735@kroah.com>
References: <000000000000f0d8d205a531f1a3@google.com>
 <20200509074507.GC1831917@kroah.com>
 <87wo5l4ecm.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87wo5l4ecm.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 12:00:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> > On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 12:20:14AM -0700, syzbot wrote:
> >> memtype_reserve failed: [mem 0xffffffffff000-0x00008fff], req write-back
> >> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 7025 at arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c:589 memtype_reserve+0x69f/0x820 arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c:589
> >
> > So should memtype_reserve() not do a WARN if given invalid parameters as
> > it can be triggered by userspace requests?
> >
> > A normal "invalid request" debug line is probably all that is needed,
> > right?
> 
> I disagree. The callsite espcially if user space triggerable should not
> attempt to ask for a reservation where start > end:
> 
>   >> memtype_reserve failed: [mem 0xffffffffff000-0x00008fff], req write-back
> 
> The real question is which part of the call chain is responsible for
> this. That needs to be fixed.

This is caused by 2bef9aed6f0e ("usb: usbfs: correct kernel->user page
attribute mismatch") which changed a call to remap_pfn_range() to
dma_mmap_coherent().  Looks like the error checking in remap_pfn_range()
handled the invalid options better than dma_mma_coherent() when odd
values are passed in.

We can add the check to dma_mmap_coherent(), again, but really, this
type of check should probably only be needed in one place to ensure we
always get it correct, right?

thanks,

greg k-h