On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:20:46AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> + hch
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 08:59:22PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 24.08.21 20:46, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > On 2021-08-24 19:28, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 06:37:41PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 03:40:47PM +0200, Alex Bee wrote:
> > > > > > it seems there is a regression in arm64 memory mapping in 5.14, since it
> > > > > > fails on Rockchip RK3328 when the pl330 dmac tries to map with:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > > > > WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 373 at kernel/dma/mapping.c:235 dma_map_resource+0x68/0xc0
> > > > > > Modules linked in: spi_rockchip(+) fuse
> > > > > > CPU: 2 PID: 373 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 5.14.0-rc7 #1
> > > > > > Hardware name: Pine64 Rock64 (DT)
> > > > > > pstate: 80000005 (Nzcv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO BTYPE=--)
> > > > > > pc : dma_map_resource+0x68/0xc0
> > > > > > lr : pl330_prep_slave_fifo+0x78/0xd0
> > > > > > sp : ffff800012102ae0
> > > > > > x29: ffff800012102ae0 x28: ffff000005c94800 x27: 0000000000000000
> > > > > > x26: ffff000000566bd0 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: 0000000000000001
> > > > > > x23: 0000000000000002 x22: ffff000000628c00 x21: 0000000000000001
> > > > > > x20: ffff000000566bd0 x19: 0000000000000001 x18: 0000000000000000
> > > > > > x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: 0000000000000000
> > > > > > x14: 0000000000000277 x13: 0000000000000001 x12: 0000000000000000
> > > > > > x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 00000000000008e0 x9 : ffff800012102a80
> > > > > > x8 : ffff000000d14b80 x7 : ffff0000fe7b12f0 x6 : ffff0000fe7b1100
> > > > > > x5 : fffffc000000000f x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000000001
> > > > > > x2 : 0000000000000001 x1 : 00000000ff190800 x0 : ffff000000628c00
> > > > > > Call trace:
> > > > > > dma_map_resource+0x68/0xc0
> > > > > > pl330_prep_slave_sg+0x58/0x220
> > > > > > rockchip_spi_prepare_dma+0xd8/0x2c0 [spi_rockchip]
> > > > > > rockchip_spi_transfer_one+0x294/0x3d8 [spi_rockchip]
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > Note: This does not relate to the spi driver - when disabling this device in
> > > > > > the device tree it fails for any other (i2s, for instance) which uses dma.
> > > > > > Commenting out the failing check at [1], however, helps and the mapping
> > > > > > works again.
> > > >
> > > > > Do you know which address dma_map_resource() is trying to map (maybe
> > > > > add some printk())? It's not supposed to map RAM, hence the warning.
> > > > > Random guess, the address is 0xff190800 (based on the x1 above but the
> > > > > regs might as well be mangled).
> > > >
> > > > 0xff190800 will cause this warning for sure. It has a memory map, but it is
> > > > not RAM so old version of pfn_valid() would return 0 and the new one
> > > > returns 1.
> > >
> > > How does that happen, though? It's not a memory address, and it's not
> > > even within the bounds of anywhere there should or could be memory. This
> > > SoC has a simple memory map - everything from 0 to 0xfeffffff goes to
> > > the DRAM controller (which may not all be populated, and may have pieces
> > > carved out by secure firmware), while 0xff000000-0xffffffff is MMIO. Why
> > > do we have pages (or at least the assumption of pages) for somewhere
> > > which by all rights should not have them?
> >
> > Simple: we allocate the vmemmap for whole sections (e.g., 128 MiB) to avoid
> > any such hacks. If there is a memory hole, it gets a memmap as well.
> >
> > Tricking pfn_valid() into returning "false" where we actually have a memmap
> > only makes it look like there is no memmap; but there is one, and
> > it's PG_reserved.
>
> I can see the documentation for pfn_valid() does not claim anything more
> than the presence of an memmap entry. But I wonder whether the confusion
> is wider-spread than just the DMA code. At a quick grep, try_ram_remap()
> assumes __va() can be used on pfn_valid(), though I suspect it relies on
> the calling function to check that the resource was RAM. The arm64
> kern_addr_valid() returns true based on pfn_valid() and kcore.c uses
> standard memcpy on it, which wouldn't work for I/O (should we change
> this check to pfn_is_map_memory() for arm64?).
>
> > > > > Either pfn_valid() gets confused in 5.14 or something is wrong with the
> > > > > DT. I have a suspicion it's the former since reverting the above commit
> > > > > makes it disappear.
> > > >
> > > > I think pfn_valid() actually behaves as expected but the caller is wrong
> > > > because pfn_valid != RAM (this applies btw to !arm64 as well).
> > > >
> > > > /* Don't allow RAM to be mapped */
> > > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(pfn_valid(PHYS_PFN(phys_addr))))
> > > > return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;
> > > >
> > > > Alex, can you please try this patch:
> > >
> > > That will certainly paper over the issue, but it's avoiding the question
> > > of what went wrong with the memory map in the first place. The comment
> > > is indeed a bit inaccurate, but ultimately dma_map_resource() exists for
> > > addresses that would be wrong to pass to dma_map_page(), so I believe
> > > pfn_valid() is still the correct check.
> >
> > If we want to check for RAM, pfn_valid() would be wrong. If we want to check
> > for "is there a memmap, for whatever lives or does not live there",
> > pfn_valid() is the right check.
>
> So what should the DMA code use instead? Last time we needed something
> similar, the recommendation was to use pfn_to_online_page(). Mike is
> suggesting memblock_is_memory().
I did some digging and it seems that the most "generic" way to check if a
page is in RAM is page_is_ram(). It's not 100% bullet proof as it'll give
false negatives for architectures that do not register "System RAM", but
those are not using dma_map_resource() anyway and, apparently, never would.
Alex, can you test this patch please?
>From 35586e9dbbdb47962cb0f3803bc650d77867905a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:01:08 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] dma-mapping: use page_is_ram to ensure RAM is not mapped
dma_map_resource() uses pfn_valid() to ensure the range is not RAM.
However, pfn_valid() only checks for availability of the memory map for a
PFN but it does not ensure that the PFN is actually backed by RAM.
Replace pfn_valid() with page_is_ram() that does verify whether a PFN is in
RAM or not.
Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/dma/mapping.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/dma/mapping.c b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
index 7ee5284bff58..dc6064a213a2 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/mapping.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
@@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ dma_addr_t dma_map_resource(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t phys_addr,
return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;
/* Don't allow RAM to be mapped */
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(pfn_valid(PHYS_PFN(phys_addr))))
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(page_is_ram(PHYS_PFN(phys_addr))))
return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;
if (dma_map_direct(dev, ops))
--
2.28.0
> Given how later we are in the -rc cycle, I suggest we revert Anshuman's
> commit 16c9afc77660 ("arm64/mm: drop HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID") and try to
> assess the implications in 5.15 (the patch doesn't seem to have the
> arm64 maintainers' ack anyway ;)).
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Catalin
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
