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

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/04/17 08:01, 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.
>
> I'm not sure I agree there. Granted, there exist many more problematic
> aspects than are dealt with here (I've got more patches cooking to sort
> out some of the other issues we have with dma-ranges), but considering
> size specifically:
>
> - It is not possible to explicitly specify a range with a size of 2^64
> in DT. If someone does specify a size of 0, they've done a silly thing
> and should not be surprised that it ends badly.

And because of this, we allow ~0 (both 32 and 64 bit) in DT dma-ranges
and fix these up as 2^32 and 2^64 sizes.

Rob