Re: [PATCH V10 06/12] of: device: Fix overflow of coherent_dma_mask

[Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org>]

Hi Frank,

On 4/7/2017 1:04 AM, 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@codeaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  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.
>

ok, this is the same problem that should get solved when arch_setup_dma_ops
is prepared to take mask instead of size. It would still work as said above
with a smaller mask than specified.

> 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?

The handling of return error value looks like separate item, but looks
like its correct with what is there now. (ie) when of_dma_get_range fails
either because 'dma-ranges property' populated in DT (or) because of some
erroneous DT setting, better to set the mask which the driver has specified
and ignore DT. So the above patch just corrects a mistake in that path.

Regards,
  Sricharan

-- 
"QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation