On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:14:39PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2021-06-24 07:05, Claire Chang wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:43 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 02:44:34PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > > is_swiotlb_force_bounce at /usr/src/linux-next/./include/linux/swiotlb.h:119
> > > >
> > > > is_swiotlb_force_bounce() was the new function introduced in this patch here.
> > > >
> > > > +static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > To me the crash looks like dev->dma_io_tlb_mem is NULL. Can you
> > > turn this into :
> > >
> > > return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem && dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
> > >
> > > for a quick debug check?
> >
> > I just realized that dma_io_tlb_mem might be NULL like Christoph
> > pointed out since swiotlb might not get initialized.
> > However, `Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
> > dfff80000000000e` looks more like the address is garbage rather than
> > NULL?
> > I wonder if that's because dev->dma_io_tlb_mem is not assigned
> > properly (which means device_initialize is not called?).
>
> What also looks odd is that the base "address" 0xdfff800000000000 is held in
> a couple of registers, but the offset 0xe looks too small to match up to any
> relevant structure member in that dereference chain :/
FWIW, I've managed to trigger a NULL dereference locally when swiotlb hasn't
been initialised but we dereference 'dev->dma_io_tlb_mem', so I think
Christoph's suggestion is needed regardless. But I agree that it won't help
with the issue reported by Qian Cai.
Qian Cai: please can you share your .config and your command line?
Thanks,
Will
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
