[PATCH] arm64/dma-mapping: fix DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS mmaping code
Andrzej Hajda
a.hajda at samsung.com
Thu Mar 30 04:16:24 PDT 2017
Hi Robin,
On 30.03.2017 12:44, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 30/03/17 09:30, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 30.03.2017 09:40, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> Hi Andrzej,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda at samsung.com> wrote:
>>>> On 29.03.2017 17:33, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>> On 29/03/17 16:12, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>>>>>> On 29.03.2017 14:55, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/03/17 11:05, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>>>>>>>> In case of DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS allocations vm_area->pages
>>>>>>>> is invalid. __iommu_mmap_attrs and __iommu_get_sgtable cannot use
>>>>>>>> it. In first case temporary pages array is passed to iommu_dma_mmap,
>>>>>>>> in 2nd case single entry sg table is created directly instead
>>>>>>>> of calling helper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fixes: 44176bb ("arm64: Add support for DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS to IOMMU")
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda at samsung.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not familiar with this framework so please don't be too cruel ;)
>>>>>>>> Alternative solution I see is to always create vm_area->pages,
>>>>>>>> I do not know which approach is preferred.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Andrzej
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
>>>>>>>> index f7b5401..bba2bc8 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -704,7 +704,30 @@ static int __iommu_mmap_attrs(struct device *dev, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> area = find_vm_area(cpu_addr);
>>>>>>>> - if (WARN_ON(!area || !area->pages))
>>>>>>>> + if (WARN_ON(!area))
>>>>>>> >From the look of things, it doesn't seem strictly necessary to change
>>>>>>> this, but whether that's a good thing is another matter. I'm not sure
>>>>>>> that dma_common_contiguous_remap() should really be leaving a dangling
>>>>>>> pointer in area->pages as it apparently does... :/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> + return -ENXIO;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + if (attrs & DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS) {
>>>>>>>> + struct page *page = vmalloc_to_page(cpu_addr);
>>>>>>>> + unsigned int count = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>>>>>> + struct page **pages;
>>>>>>>> + unsigned long pfn;
>>>>>>>> + int i;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + pages = kmalloc_array(count, sizeof(*pages), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>>>> + if (!pages)
>>>>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + for (i = 0, pfn = page_to_pfn(page); i < count; i++)
>>>>>>>> + pages[i] = pfn_to_page(pfn + i);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + ret = iommu_dma_mmap(pages, size, vma);
>>>>>>> /**
>>>>>>> * iommu_dma_mmap - Map a buffer into provided user VMA
>>>>>>> * @pages: Array representing buffer from iommu_dma_alloc()
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this case, the buffer has not come from iommu_dma_alloc(), so passing
>>>>>>> into iommu_dma_mmap() is wrong by contract, even if having to fake up a
>>>>>>> page array wasn't enough of a red flag. Given that a FORCE_CONTIGUOUS
>>>>>>> allocation is essentially the same as for the non-IOMMU case, I think it
>>>>>>> should be sufficient to defer to that path, i.e.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (attrs & DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS)
>>>>>>> return __swiotlb_mmap(dev, vma, cpu_addr,
>>>>>>> phys_to_dma(virt_to_phys(cpu_addr)),
>>>>>>> size, attrs);
>>>>>> Maybe I have make mistake somewhere but it does not work, here and below
>>>>>> (hangs or crashes). I suppose it can be due to different address
>>>>>> translations, my patch uses
>>>>>> page = vmalloc_to_page(cpu_addr).
>>>>>> And here we have:
>>>>>> handle = phys_to_dma(dev, virt_to_phys(cpu_addr)); // in
>>>>>> __iommu_mmap_attrs
>>>>>> page = phys_to_page(dma_to_phys(dev, handle)); // in
>>>>>> __swiotlb_get_sgtable
>>>>>> I guess it is similarly in __swiotlb_mmap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are these translations equivalent?
>>>>> Ah, my mistake, sorry - I managed to forget that cpu_addr is always
>>>>> remapped for FORCE_CONTIGUOUS (*and* somehow overlook the use of
>>>>> vmalloc_to_page() in the patch itself), so the virt_to_phys() part of my
>>>>> example is indeed bogus. The general point still stands, though.
>>>> I guess Geert's proposition to create pages permanently is also not
>>>> acceptable[2]. So how to fix crashes which appeared after patch adding
>>> If I'm not mistaken, creating the pages permanently is what the
>>> !DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS does? The only difference is where
>>> the underlying memory is allocated from.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>> Quoting Robin from his response:
>>> in general is is not
>>> safe to assume a coherent allocation is backed by struct pages at all
>> As I said before I am not familiar with the subject, so it is possible I
>> misunderstood something.
> That's from the perspective of external callers of
> dma_alloc_coherent()/dma_alloc_attrs(), wherein
> dma_alloc_from_coherent() may have returned device-specific memory
> without calling into the arch dma_map_ops implementation. Internal to
> the arm64 implementation, however, everything *we* allocate comes from
> either CMA or the normal page allocator, so should always be backed by
> real kernel pages.
>
> Robin.
OK, so what do you exactly mean by "The general point still stands", my
patch fixes handling of allocations made internally?
Anyway as I understand approach "creating the pages permanently" in
__iommu_alloc_attrs is OK. Is it worth to create patch adding it? It
should solve the issue as well and also looks saner (for me).
Regards
Andrzej
>> Regards
>> Andrzej
>>
>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>> support to DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS in IOMMU on arm64 [1]?
>>>> Maybe temporary solution is to drop the patch until proper handling of
>>>> mmapping is proposed, without it the patch looks incomplete and causes
>>>> regression.
>>>> Moreover __iommu_alloc_attrs uses also dma_common_contiguous_remap which
>>>> also assumes existence of struct pages.
>>>>
>>>> [1]: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9609551/
>>>> [2]: https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg572688.html
>>> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>>>
>>> Geert
>>>
>>> --
>>> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org
>>>
>>> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
>>> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>>> -- Linus Torvalds
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list