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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CGME20200520090109eucas1p17270805f81f6958cd5084a7b910efc6c@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
 <a9df7155-dd7a-752b-6d1c-3426837756b1@ti.com> <e9674719-0c86-63be-04a3-ee98bd884901@samsung.com>
 <f3c58dcd-b806-95ef-2434-3084e65e1afb@ti.com> <e3fa0b35-7cca-1e37-c2fa-63cc07e6bfda@samsung.com>
 <227465a5-c6e6-5b4d-abbd-7789727843a6@ti.com> <29a21e64-a63f-6721-c938-d713488767c1@samsung.com>
In-Reply-To: <29a21e64-a63f-6721-c938-d713488767c1@samsung.com>
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 15:12:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFq8-JYA_tKZmUZOY3mT-jeoWMHNpdj8SDGkqYmX7jJHVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Bad kfree of dma_parms in v5.7-rc5
To:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
Cc:     Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

+ Greg

On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 14:54, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Tomi,
>
> On 20.05.2020 14:43, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > On 20/05/2020 12:22, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> >> On 20.05.2020 11:18, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >>> On 20/05/2020 12:13, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> >>>> On 20.05.2020 11:00, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >>>>> Commit 9495b7e92f716ab2bd6814fab5e97ab4a39adfdd ("driver core:
> >>>>> platform: Initialize dma_parms for platform devices") v5.7-rc5 causes
> >>>>> at least some v4l2 platform drivers to break when freeing resources.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> E.g. drivers/media/platform/ti-vpe/cal.c uses
> >>>>> vb2_dma_contig_set_max_seg_size() and
> >>>>> vb2_dma_contig_clear_max_seg_size() to manage the dma_params, and
> >>>>> similar pattern is seen in other drivers too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After 9495b7e92f716ab2, vb2_dma_contig_set_max_seg_size() will not
> >>>>> allocate anything, but vb2_dma_contig_clear_max_seg_size() will still
> >>>>> kfree the dma_params.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure what's the proper fix here. A flag somewhere to indicate
> >>>>> that vb2_dma_contig_set_max_seg_size() did allocate, and thus
> >>>>> vb2_dma_contig_clear_max_seg_size() must free?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or drop the kzalloc and kfree totally, if dma_params is now supposed
> >>>>> to always be there?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for reporting this issue!
> >>>>
> >>>> Once the mentioned commit has been merged, the code should assume that
> >>>> the platform devices does have a struct dma_params allocated, so the
> >>>> proper fix is to alloc dma_params only if the bus is not a platform
> >>>> bus:
> >>>>
> >>>> if (!dev_is_platform(dev) && !dev->dma_parms) {
> >>>>        dev->dma_parms = kzalloc(sizeof(*dev->dma_parms), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>
> >>>> same check for the free path.
> >>>
> >>> There is also "amba: Initialize dma_parms for amba devices". And the
> >>> commit message says PCI devices do this too.
> >>>
> >>> Guessing this based on the device type doesn't sound like a good idea
> >>> to me.
> >>
> >> Indeed. Then replace the allocation with a simple check for NULL
> >> dma_parms and return an error in such case. This should be enough for
> >> v5.8. Later we can simply get rid of those helpers and inline setting
> >> max segment size directly to the drivers.

That seems like a good idea, in the long run.

> >
> > Is that valid either? Then we assume that dma_parms is always set up
> > by someone else. That's true for platform devices and apparently some
> > other devices, but is it true for all devices now?
>
> # git grep vb2_dma_contig_set_max_seg_size | wc -l
>
> 18
>
> I've checked all clients of the vb2_dma_contig_set_max_seg_size
> function. There are only 9 drivers, all of them are platform device
> drivers. We don't care about off-tree users, so the proposed approach is
> imho fine.

Thanks for reporting and for looking into this. I apologize for the mess!

There is one case, where the above solution could be a problem (unless
I am wrong). That is, s5p_mfc_configure_2port_memory() that calls
s5p_mfc_alloc_memdev(), which allocates/initializes an internal struct
*device. Thus, this doesn't have the dev->dma_parms
allocated/assigned.

In other words, we would need to manage alloc/free for the
dev->dma_parms to have a complete fix. Maybe in
s5p_mfc_configure|unconfigure_2port_memory()!?

Additionally, I think reverting the offending commit, as discussed
above, could cause even more issues, as it's even included for
v5.6-stable kernels. I will go through all cases, more carefully this
time, of how ->dma_parms is managed, to be sure there are no more
conflicting cases.

Kind regards
Uffe