Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: add overflow checks to swiotlb_bounce

2021-07-13 Thread Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 02:12:54PM +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> This is a follow-up on 5f89468e2f06 ("swiotlb: manipulate orig_addr
> when tlb_addr has offset") which fixed unaligned dma mappings,
> making sure the following overflows are caught:
> 
> - offset of the start of the slot within the device bigger than
> requested address' offset, in other words if the base address
> given in swiotlb_tbl_map_single to create the mapping (orig_addr)
> was after the requested address for the sync (tlb_offset) in the
> same block:
> 
>  |--| block
>   <> mapped part of the block
>   ^
>   orig_addr
>^
>invalid tlb_addr for sync
> 
> - if the resulting offset was bigger than the allocation size
> this one could happen if the mapping was not until the end. e.g.
> 
>  |--| block
>   <-> mapped part of the block
>   ^   ^
>   orig_addr   invalid tlb_addr
> 
> Both should never happen so print a warning and bail out without trying
> to adjust the sizes/offsets: the first one could try to sync from
> orig_addr to whatever is left of the requested size, but the later
> really has nothing to sync there...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dominique Martinet 
> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 
> Cc: Bumyong Lee 
> Cc: Chanho Park 
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig 
> ---
> 
> Hi Konrad,
> 
> here's the follow up for the swiotlb/caamjr regression I had promissed.

Awesome!
> It doesn't really change anything, and I confirmed I don't hit either of
> the warnings on our board, but it's probably best to have as either
> could really happen.

:nods:

I put it in the devel/for-linus-5.14 and linux-next. Thank you!
___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu


RE: [PATCH] swiotlb: add overflow checks to swiotlb_bounce

2021-07-07 Thread 이범용
> This is a follow-up on 5f89468e2f06 ("swiotlb: manipulate orig_addr when
> tlb_addr has offset") which fixed unaligned dma mappings, making sure the
> following overflows are caught:
> 
> - offset of the start of the slot within the device bigger than requested
> address' offset, in other words if the base address given in
> swiotlb_tbl_map_single to create the mapping (orig_addr) was after the
> requested address for the sync (tlb_offset) in the same block:
> 
>  |--| block
>   <> mapped part of the block
>   ^
>   orig_addr
>^
>invalid tlb_addr for sync
> 
> - if the resulting offset was bigger than the allocation size this one
> could happen if the mapping was not until the end. e.g.
> 
>  |--| block
>   <-> mapped part of the block
>   ^   ^
>   orig_addr   invalid tlb_addr
> 
> Both should never happen so print a warning and bail out without trying to
> adjust the sizes/offsets: the first one could try to sync from orig_addr
> to whatever is left of the requested size, but the later really has
> nothing to sync there...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dominique Martinet 
> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 
> Cc: Bumyong Lee 

Reviewed-by: Bumyong Lee  Cc: Chanho Park 
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig 
> ---
> 
> Hi Konrad,
> 
> here's the follow up for the swiotlb/caamjr regression I had promissed.
> It doesn't really change anything, and I confirmed I don't hit either of
> the warnings on our board, but it's probably best to have as either could
> really happen.
> 
> 
>  kernel/dma/swiotlb.c | 20 +---
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c index
> e50df8d8f87e..23f8d0b168c5 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> @@ -354,13 +354,27 @@ static void swiotlb_bounce(struct device *dev,
> phys_addr_t tlb_addr, size_t size
>   size_t alloc_size = mem->slots[index].alloc_size;
>   unsigned long pfn = PFN_DOWN(orig_addr);
>   unsigned char *vaddr = phys_to_virt(tlb_addr);
> - unsigned int tlb_offset;
> + unsigned int tlb_offset, orig_addr_offset;
> 
>   if (orig_addr == INVALID_PHYS_ADDR)
>   return;
> 
> - tlb_offset = (tlb_addr & (IO_TLB_SIZE - 1)) -
> -  swiotlb_align_offset(dev, orig_addr);
> + tlb_offset = tlb_addr & (IO_TLB_SIZE - 1);
> + orig_addr_offset = swiotlb_align_offset(dev, orig_addr);
> + if (tlb_offset < orig_addr_offset) {
> + dev_WARN_ONCE(dev, 1,
> + "Access before mapping start detected. orig offset
%u,
> requested offset %u.\n",
> + orig_addr_offset, tlb_offset);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + tlb_offset -= orig_addr_offset;
> + if (tlb_offset > alloc_size) {
> + dev_WARN_ONCE(dev, 1,
> + "Buffer overflow detected. Allocation size: %zu.
> Mapping size: %zu+%u.\n",
> + alloc_size, size, tlb_offset);
> + return;
> + }
> 
>   orig_addr += tlb_offset;
>   alloc_size -= tlb_offset;
> --
> 2.30.2


___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu


[PATCH] swiotlb: add overflow checks to swiotlb_bounce

2021-07-06 Thread Dominique Martinet
This is a follow-up on 5f89468e2f06 ("swiotlb: manipulate orig_addr
when tlb_addr has offset") which fixed unaligned dma mappings,
making sure the following overflows are caught:

- offset of the start of the slot within the device bigger than
requested address' offset, in other words if the base address
given in swiotlb_tbl_map_single to create the mapping (orig_addr)
was after the requested address for the sync (tlb_offset) in the
same block:

 |--| block
  <> mapped part of the block
  ^
  orig_addr
   ^
   invalid tlb_addr for sync

- if the resulting offset was bigger than the allocation size
this one could happen if the mapping was not until the end. e.g.

 |--| block
  <-> mapped part of the block
  ^   ^
  orig_addr   invalid tlb_addr

Both should never happen so print a warning and bail out without trying
to adjust the sizes/offsets: the first one could try to sync from
orig_addr to whatever is left of the requested size, but the later
really has nothing to sync there...

Signed-off-by: Dominique Martinet 
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 
Cc: Bumyong Lee 
Cc: Chanho Park 
Cc: Christoph Hellwig 
---

Hi Konrad,

here's the follow up for the swiotlb/caamjr regression I had promissed.
It doesn't really change anything, and I confirmed I don't hit either of
the warnings on our board, but it's probably best to have as either
could really happen.


 kernel/dma/swiotlb.c | 20 +---
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
index e50df8d8f87e..23f8d0b168c5 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
@@ -354,13 +354,27 @@ static void swiotlb_bounce(struct device *dev, 
phys_addr_t tlb_addr, size_t size
size_t alloc_size = mem->slots[index].alloc_size;
unsigned long pfn = PFN_DOWN(orig_addr);
unsigned char *vaddr = phys_to_virt(tlb_addr);
-   unsigned int tlb_offset;
+   unsigned int tlb_offset, orig_addr_offset;
 
if (orig_addr == INVALID_PHYS_ADDR)
return;
 
-   tlb_offset = (tlb_addr & (IO_TLB_SIZE - 1)) -
-swiotlb_align_offset(dev, orig_addr);
+   tlb_offset = tlb_addr & (IO_TLB_SIZE - 1);
+   orig_addr_offset = swiotlb_align_offset(dev, orig_addr);
+   if (tlb_offset < orig_addr_offset) {
+   dev_WARN_ONCE(dev, 1,
+   "Access before mapping start detected. orig offset %u, 
requested offset %u.\n",
+   orig_addr_offset, tlb_offset);
+   return;
+   }
+
+   tlb_offset -= orig_addr_offset;
+   if (tlb_offset > alloc_size) {
+   dev_WARN_ONCE(dev, 1,
+   "Buffer overflow detected. Allocation size: %zu. 
Mapping size: %zu+%u.\n",
+   alloc_size, size, tlb_offset);
+   return;
+   }
 
orig_addr += tlb_offset;
alloc_size -= tlb_offset;
-- 
2.30.2

___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu