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;
Message-ID: <342e81ec-8c67-29ea-ae38-5911073ecdb0@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Oct 2021 16:10:46 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.1.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] s390/cio: make ccw_device_dma_* more robust
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@linux.ibm.com>,
        Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     stable@vger.kernel.org, bfu@redhat.com
References: <20211011115955.2504529-1-pasic@linux.ibm.com>
 <466de207-e88d-ea93-beec-fbfe10e63a26@linux.ibm.com>
 <874k9ny6k6.fsf@redhat.com>
From:   Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <874k9ny6k6.fsf@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 10/11/21 16:33, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11 2021, Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/11/21 1:59 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c b/drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c
>>> index 0fe7b2f2e7f5..c533d1dadc6b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c
>>> @@ -825,13 +825,23 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ccw_device_get_chid);
>>>     */
>>>    void *ccw_device_dma_zalloc(struct ccw_device *cdev, size_t size)
>>>    {
>>> -	return cio_gp_dma_zalloc(cdev->private->dma_pool, &cdev->dev, size);
>>> +	void *addr;
>>> +
>>> +	if (!get_device(&cdev->dev))
>>> +		return NULL;
>>> +	addr = cio_gp_dma_zalloc(cdev->private->dma_pool, &cdev->dev, size);
>>> +	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(addr))
>>
>> I can be wrong but it seems that only dma_alloc_coherent() used in
>> cio_gp_dma_zalloc() report an error but the error is ignored and used as
>> a valid pointer.
> 
> Hm, I thought dma_alloc_coherent() returned either NULL or a valid
> address?

hum, my bad, checked the wrong function, should have use my glasses or 
connect my brain.

> 
>>
>> So shouldn't we modify this function and just test for a NULL address here?
> 
> If I read cio_gp_dma_zalloc() correctly, we either get NULL or a valid
> address, so yes.
> 

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen