Re: [PATCH RFC] iommu/dma: Validate page before accessing P2PDMA state

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 10:19:41AM +0530, Ashish Mhetre wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/25/2026 2:27 AM, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 02:32:21PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 10:42:57AM +0000, Ashish Mhetre wrote:
> > > > When mapping scatter-gather entries that reference reserved
> > > > memory regions without struct page backing (e.g., bootloader created
> > > > carveouts), is_pci_p2pdma_page() dereferences the page pointer
> > > > returned by sg_page() without first verifying its validity.
> > > I believe this behavior started after commit 88df6ab2f34b
> > > ("mm: add folio_is_pci_p2pdma()"). Prior to that change, the
> > > is_zone_device_page(page) check would return false when given a
> > > non‑existent page pointer.
> > > 
> 
> Thanks Leon for the review. This crash started after commit 30280eee2db1
> ("iommu/dma: support PCI P2PDMA pages in dma-iommu map_sg").
> 
> > Doesn't folio_is_pci_p2pdma() also check for zone device?
> > I see[1] that it does:
> > 
> > static inline bool folio_is_pci_p2pdma(const struct folio *folio)
> > {
> >          return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_P2PDMA) &&
> >                  folio_is_zone_device(folio) &&
> >                  folio->pgmap->type == MEMORY_DEVICE_PCI_P2PDMA;
> > }
> > 
> > I believe the problem arises due to the page_folio() call in
> > folio_is_pci_p2pdma(page_folio(page)); within is_pci_p2pdma_page().
> > page_folio() assumes it has a valid struct page to work with. For these
> > carveouts, that isn't true.
> > 
> > Potentially something like the following would stop the crash:
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/memremap.h b/include/linux/memremap.h
> > index e3c2ccf872a8..e47876021afa 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/memremap.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/memremap.h
> > @@ -197,7 +197,8 @@ static inline void folio_set_zone_device_data(struct folio *folio, void *data)
> > 
> >   static inline bool is_pci_p2pdma_page(const struct page *page)
> >   {
> > -       return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_P2PDMA) &&
> > +       return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_P2PDMA) && page &&
> > +               pfn_valid(page_to_pfn(page)) &&
> >                  folio_is_pci_p2pdma(page_folio(page));
> >   }
> > 
> 
> Yes, this will also fix the crash.
> 
> > But my broader question is: why are we calling a page-based API like
> > is_pci_p2pdma_page() on non-struct-page memory in the first place?
> > Could we instead add a helper to verify if the sg_page() return value
> > is actually backed by a struct page? If it isn't, we should arguably
> > skip the P2PDMA logic entirely and fall back to a dma_map_phys style
> > path. Isn't handling these "pageless" physical ranges the primary reason
> > dma_map_phys exists?
> 
> Thanks for the feedback, Pranjal.
> 
> To clarify: are you suggesting we handle non-page-backed mappings inside
> iommu_dma_map_sg (within dma-iommu), or that callers should detect
> non-page-backed memory and use dma_map_phys instead of dma_map_sg?

The latter one.

> Former approach sounds better so that existing iommu_dma_map_sg callers
> don't need changes, but I'd like to confirm your preference.

The bug is in callers which used wrong API, they need to be adapted.

Thanks