+ Lorenzo
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:51:21AM +0000, George Cherian wrote:
> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 10:48:11AM +0800, Yang Yingliang wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c index
> > > 1006ed2d7c604..ddfa1c53def48 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
> > > @@ -217,4 +217,9 @@ void pcibios_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus)
> > > acpi_pci_remove_bus(bus);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +void pci_iounmap(struct pci_dev *dev, void __iomem *addr) {
> > > + iounmap(addr);
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_iounmap);
> >
> > So, what's wrong with the generic pci_iounmap() implementation?
> > Shouldn't it call iounmap() already?
>
> Since ARM64 selects CONFIG_GENERIC_PCI_IOMAP and not
> CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP, the pci_iounmap function is reduced to a NULL
> function. Due to this, even the managed release variants or even the explicit
> pci_iounmap calls doesn't really remove the mappings leading to leak.
Ah, I missed the fact that pci_iounmap() depends on a different
config option.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/20/28
So is this going to be fixed in the generic code? That would be my
preference.
A problem with the iounmap() in the proposed patch is that the region
may have been an I/O port, so we could end up unmapping the I/O space.
--
Catalin
