On Fri, Mar 21, 2025, at 15:13, Petr Tesarik wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:41:52 +0100 >> Ok, then the question is what we should do about callers that pass >> in stack data. I can send a patch that adds a WARN_ONCE() or similar, >> but it would trigger on things like >> >> static int rt1711h_read16(struct rt1711h_chip *chip, unsigned int reg, u16 *val) >> { >> return regmap_raw_read(chip->data.regmap, reg, val, sizeof(u16)); >> } >> static int rt1711h_write16(struct rt1711h_chip *chip, unsigned int reg, u16 val) >> { >> return regmap_raw_write(chip->data.regmap, reg, &val, sizeof(u16)); >> } >> >> which happens in a number of drivers but is harmless as long >> as the driver doesn't actually try to DMA into that buffer. > > This sounds like we should push the WARN_ONCE() one level deeper, into > the DMA code. That's a good idea, actually, because it's always wrong > to do DMA to a stack address, not just when SPI does it. This doesn't work for the current SPI code that uses vmalloc_to_page() in order to deal with vmalloc addresses. Passing a vmap stack address in here would continue working on the address from the linear map. There is already a check_for_stack() assertion in debug_dma_map_page(), which is meant to catch this problem in the DMA layer itself, but only when CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG is enabled. Arnd