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: <20210630122057.2795882-1-arnd@kernel.org> <6a5d06db-92af-7df0-2c71-e25bad08ee0c@rock-chips.com>
In-Reply-To: <6a5d06db-92af-7df0-2c71-e25bad08ee0c@rock-chips.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 2 Jul 2021 09:03:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3UjLfKpsg2M-RP3AO3CVCnZrbD71uaLf0+iiJ9RJsHCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtQQVRDSF0gbW1jOiB3YXJuIGZvciBpbnZhbGlkIFNESU8gZGF0YSBidWZmZXJz?=
        =?UTF-8?B?44CQ6K+35rOo5oSP77yM6YKu5Lu255SxbGludXgtbW1jLW93bmVyQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZ+S7ow==?=
        =?UTF-8?B?5Y+R44CR?=
To:     Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>
Cc:     Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 3:02 AM Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com> wrote:
> On 2021/6/30 20:20, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >
> > Jernej Skrabec reported a problem with the cw1200 driver failing on
> > arm64 systems with CONFIG_VMAP_STACK=y.
> >
> > The driver in this case passes a pointer to a stack variable (in vmalloc
> > space) into the sdio layer, which gets translated into an invalid DMA
> > address.
> >
> > Even without CONFIG_VMAP_STACK, the driver is still unreliable, as
> > cache invalidations on the DMA buffer may cause random data corruption
> > in adjacent stack slots.
> >
> > This could be worked around in the SDIO core, but in the discussion we
> > decided that passing a stack variable into SDIO should always be considered
> > a bug, as it is for USB drivers.
> >
> > Change the sdio core to produce a one-time warning for any on-stack
> > (both with and without CONFIG_VMAP_STACK) as well as any vmalloc
> > or module-local address that would have the same translation problem.
>
> This was the previous comment about the same topic.
> Should we check for mmc_io_rw_direct?
>
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mmc/msg41794.html

Hi Shawn,

thank you for remembering that previous discussion, that is a
good question. Looking at the code though, I don't actually
see any part of mmc_io_rw_direct() doing DMA on a caller-provided
buffer. The only thing I see in the code is a 'u8 *out' argument, but
that is just a pointer to a single byte that is set by this function.

Do you see any other issue with that function, or does that mean
we don't have to change it?

       Arnd