[PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu: fix leak in arm_smmu_flush_pgtable

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 05:28:02PM +0000, Mitchel Humpherys wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05 2015 at 02:38:45 AM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy at arm.com> wrote:
> > On 05/03/15 00:18, Mitchel Humpherys wrote:
> >> We're currently mapping a page in arm_smmu_flush_pgtable without ever
> >> unmapping it.  Fix this by calling dma_unmap_page on the returned dma
> >> address.  Since the only reason we're calling dma_map_page is to make
> >> sure it actually gets flushed out to RAM, we can just call
> >> dma_unmap_page immediately following the map.
> >>
> >> Without this, eventually swiotlb runs out of memory and starts printing
> >> things like:
> >>
> >>      [   35.545076] arm-smmu d00000.arm,smmu: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 128 bytes)
> >>
> >
> > So, you have non-coherent SMMUs too ;) The real problem is that the SMMU's
> > DMA mask is wrong (as it happens I've just given Will a patch to fix that)
> > - this is really just doing a whole bunch of unnecessary work (two memory
> > copies and two cache flushes, one of which isn't even flushing the right
> > area) to hide the problem. With an appropriate DMA mask set,
> > swiotlb_map_page becomes a no-op and we fall through to the cache flush
> > without ever allocating anything.
> 
> Yeah I noticed that as well...  But isn't this still incorrect usage of
> the API (DMA-API-HOWTO.txt seems to indicate that calls to map should
> always be balanced with calls to unmap)?  What we really want to do here
> is just call __dma_map_area directly, but the comment on that guy
> expressly forbids it...  Not sure what's worse, abusing the DMA API or
> disobeying that comment?

I'm not against adding the unmap, but the reasoning would have to change
slightly (it's not related to swiotlb) and it could wait until 4.1 since
Robin's fix actually addresses the root cause.

Will