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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-direct: Fix potential NULL pointer dereference
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     konrad.wilk@oracle.com, m.szyprowski@samsung.com,
        robin.murphy@arm.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1600178594-22801-1-git-send-email-thomas.tai@oracle.com>
 <20200915140719.GA14831@lst.de>
 <f5cba632-421a-f375-3697-51a182a53a32@oracle.com>
 <20200915142624.GA16005@lst.de>
 <da9ec51d-aab5-695d-e388-5ae7c0bb30ea@oracle.com>
 <20200915150929.GA19770@lst.de>
From:   Thomas Tai <thomas.tai@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <5136ed8d-d37d-8144-a6f3-c23f272d8926@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:46:17 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200915150929.GA19770@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


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