On 08/04/17 00:13, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 04/07/17 07:46, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 06/04/17 20:34, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> On 04/06/17 04:01, Sricharan R wrote: >>>> Hi Frank, >>>> >>>> On 4/6/2017 12:31 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: >>>>> On 04/04/17 03:18, Sricharan R wrote: >>>>>> Size of the dma-range is calculated as coherent_dma_mask + 1 >>>>>> and passed to arch_setup_dma_ops further. It overflows when >>>>>> the coherent_dma_mask is set for full 64 bits 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, >>>>>> resulting in size getting passed as 0 wrongly. Fix this by >>>>>> passsing in max(mask, mask + 1). Note that in this case >>>>>> when the mask is set to full 64bits, we will be passing the mask >>>>>> itself to arch_setup_dma_ops instead of the size. The real fix >>>>>> for this should be to make arch_setup_dma_ops receive the >>>>>> mask and handle it, to be done in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/of/device.c | 2 +- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/device.c b/drivers/of/device.c >>>>>> index c17c19d..c2ae6bb 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/of/device.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/device.c >>>>>> @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ void of_dma_configure(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np) >>>>>> ret = of_dma_get_range(np, &dma_addr, &paddr, &size); >>>>>> if (ret < 0) { >>>>>> dma_addr = offset = 0; >>>>>> - size = dev->coherent_dma_mask + 1; >>>>>> + size = max(dev->coherent_dma_mask, dev->coherent_dma_mask + 1); >>>>>> } else { >>>>>> offset = PFN_DOWN(paddr - dma_addr); >>>>>> dev_dbg(dev, "dma_pfn_offset(%#08lx)\n", offset); >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> NACK. >>>>> >>>>> Passing an invalid size to arch_setup_dma_ops() is only part of the problem. >>>>> size is also used in of_dma_configure() before calling arch_setup_dma_ops(): >>>>> >>>>> dev->coherent_dma_mask = min(dev->coherent_dma_mask, >>>>> DMA_BIT_MASK(ilog2(dma_addr + size))); >>>>> *dev->dma_mask = min((*dev->dma_mask), >>>>> DMA_BIT_MASK(ilog2(dma_addr + size))); >>>>> >>>>> which would be incorrect for size == 0xffffffffffffffffULL when >>>>> dma_addr != 0. So the proposed fix really is not papering over >>>>> the base problem very well. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ok, but with your fix for of_dma_get_range and the above fix, >>>> dma_addr will be '0' when size = 0xffffffffffffffffULL, >>>> but DMA_BIT_MASK(ilog2(dma_addr + size)) would be wrong though, >>>> making coherent_dma_mask to be smaller 0x7fffffffffffffffULL. >>> >>> Yes, that was my point. Setting size to 0x7fffffffffffffffULL >>> affects several places. Another potential location (based only >>> on the function header comment, not from reading the code) is >>> iommu_dma_init_domain(). The header comment says: >>> >>> * @base and @size should be exact multiples of IOMMU page granularity to >>> * avoid rounding surprises. >> >> That is really only referring to the fact that some of the work done >> therein involves truncation to PFNs, so anyone passing in non-exact >> values expecting them to round a particular way may get things off by a >> page one way or the other. It's not going to have much practical >> significance for real devices (in particular since size is used more as >> a sanity check than any kind of actual limit there). >> >>> I have not read enough context to really understand of_dma_configure(), but >>> it seems there is yet another issue in how the error return case from >>> of_dma_get_range() is handled (with the existing code, as well as if >>> my patch gets accepted). An error return value can mean _either_ >>> there is no dma-ranges property _or_ "an other problem occurred". Should >>> the "an other problem occurred" case be handled by defaulting size to >>> a value based on dev->coherent_dma_mask (the current case) or should the >>> attempt to set up the DMA configuration just fail? >> >> There is indeed a lot wrong with of_dma_configure() and >> arch_setup_dma_ops(), but fixing those is beyond the scope of this >> series. This is just working around a latent bug in the one specific >> case where a value is *not* derived from DT. Any DT which worked before >> still works; any DT which made of_dma_configure() go wrong before still >> makes of_dma_configure() go wrong exactly the same. >> >> Whilst it's not ideal, since a DMA mask basically represents the maximum >> size of address that that particular device can be given, I can't see it >> making any practical difference for a full 64-bit DMA mask to be trimmed >> down to 63 bits upon re-probing - no system is likely to have that many >> physical address bits anyway, and I don't think any IOMMUs support that >> large an IOVA space either, so as long as it's still big enough to cover >> "everything", it'll be OK. >> >> Of course, whether DMA_BIT_MASK(ilog2(dma_addr + size)) is the right >> thing to do in the first place is yet another matter, as there are >> plenty of cases where it results in something which can't reach the >> given range at all, but again, this isn't the place. Much as I'm keen to >> get the behaviour of of_dma_configure() sorted out properly, it doesn't >> seem reasonable that that should suddenly block this >> almost-entirely-orthogonal series that various other work has been >> waiting on for some time now. The WIP patch I have for >> arch_setup_dma_ops() already touches 3 architectures and 4 other >> subsystems... > > In a reply to my original NACK email, I just now retracted the NACK, > but with a requested change for readability. > > I buy your analysis and argument here. The patch will improve things > a little, but it will be good to revisit of_dma_configure() in the > future to further clean things up. Thanks! As mentioned, I have some patches brewing in this area which should hopefully help somewhat; I'll try to get them posted this week. Robin. > > -Frank > >> >> Robin. >> >>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Sricharan >>>> >>>>> I agree that the proper solution involves passing a mask instead >>>>> of a size to arch_setup_dma_ops(). >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html