No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb

No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb

[Eric Yang]

Hi all,

During debug a  device only support 32bits DMA(Qualcomm Atheros AP) in our LS1043A 64bits ARM  SOC, we found that the invoke of dma_unmap_single --> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single  will unmap the passed "size" anyway even when the "size" is incorrect.

If the size is larger than it should, the extra entries in io_tlb_orig_addr array will be refilled by INVALID_PHYS_ADDR, and it will cause the bounce buffer copy not happen when the one who really used the mis-freed entries doing  DMA data transfers, and this will cause further unknow behaviors.

Here we just fix it temporarily by adding a judge of the "size" in the swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single, if it is larger than it deserves, just unmap the right size only. Like the code:

[yangyu@titan dash-lts]$ git diff ./lib/swiotlb.c
diff --git a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c
index ad1d2962d129..58c97ede9d78 100644
--- a/lib/swiotlb.c
+++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
@@ -591,7 +591,10 @@ void swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(struct device *hwdev, phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
                 */
                for (i = index + nslots - 1; i >= index; i--) {
                        io_tlb_list[i] = ++count;
-                       io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
+                      if(io_tlb_orig_addr[i]  != orig_addr)
+                          printk("======size wrong, ally down ally down!===\n");
+                      else
+                         io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
                }
                /*
                 * Step 2: merge the returned slots with the preceding slots,

Although pass a right size of DMA buffer is the responsibility of  the drivers, but Is it useful to add some size check code to prevent  real damage happen? 

Regards,
Eric

Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:17:14AM +0000, Eric Yang wrote:
> Hi all,

Hi!
> 
> During debug a  device only support 32bits DMA(Qualcomm Atheros AP) in our LS1043A 64bits ARM  SOC, we found that the invoke of dma_unmap_single --> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single  will unmap the passed "size" anyway even when the "size" is incorrect.
> 
> If the size is larger than it should, the extra entries in io_tlb_orig_addr array will be refilled by INVALID_PHYS_ADDR, and it will cause the bounce buffer copy not happen when the one who really used the mis-freed entries doing  DMA data transfers, and this will cause further unknow behaviors.
> 
> Here we just fix it temporarily by adding a judge of the "size" in the swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single, if it is larger than it deserves, just unmap the right size only. Like the code:

Did the DMA debug API (CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG) help in figuring this issue as well?

> 
> [yangyu@titan dash-lts]$ git diff ./lib/swiotlb.c
> diff --git a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c
> index ad1d2962d129..58c97ede9d78 100644
> --- a/lib/swiotlb.c
> +++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
> @@ -591,7 +591,10 @@ void swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(struct device *hwdev, phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
>                  */
>                 for (i = index + nslots - 1; i >= index; i--) {
>                         io_tlb_list[i] = ++count;
> -                       io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
> +                      if(io_tlb_orig_addr[i]  != orig_addr)
> +                          printk("======size wrong, ally down ally down!===\n");
> +                      else
> +                         io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
>                 }
>                 /*
>                  * Step 2: merge the returned slots with the preceding slots,
> 
> Although pass a right size of DMA buffer is the responsibility of  the drivers, but Is it useful to add some size check code to prevent  real damage happen? 
> 
> Regards,
> Eric

Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb

[Robin Murphy]

On 20/11/17 16:26, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:17:14AM +0000, Eric Yang wrote:
>> Hi all,
> 
> Hi!
>>
>> During debug a  device only support 32bits DMA(Qualcomm Atheros AP) in our LS1043A 64bits ARM  SOC, we found that the invoke of dma_unmap_single --> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single  will unmap the passed "size" anyway even when the "size" is incorrect.
>>
>> If the size is larger than it should, the extra entries in io_tlb_orig_addr array will be refilled by INVALID_PHYS_ADDR, and it will cause the bounce buffer copy not happen when the one who really used the mis-freed entries doing  DMA data transfers, and this will cause further unknow behaviors.
>>
>> Here we just fix it temporarily by adding a judge of the "size" in the swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single, if it is larger than it deserves, just unmap the right size only. Like the code:
> 
> Did the DMA debug API (CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG) help in figuring this issue as well?
> 
>>
>> [yangyu@titan dash-lts]$ git diff ./lib/swiotlb.c
>> diff --git a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c
>> index ad1d2962d129..58c97ede9d78 100644
>> --- a/lib/swiotlb.c
>> +++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
>> @@ -591,7 +591,10 @@ void swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(struct device *hwdev, phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
>>                   */
>>                  for (i = index + nslots - 1; i >= index; i--) {
>>                          io_tlb_list[i] = ++count;
>> -                       io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
>> +                      if(io_tlb_orig_addr[i]  != orig_addr)
>> +                          printk("======size wrong, ally down ally down!===\n");
>> +                      else
>> +                         io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
>>                  }
>>                  /*
>>                   * Step 2: merge the returned slots with the preceding slots,
>>
>> Although pass a right size of DMA buffer is the responsibility of  the drivers, but Is it useful to add some size check code to prevent  real damage happen?

There doesn't seem to be much good reason for SWIOTLB to be more special 
than other DMA API backends, and not all of them have enough internal 
state to be able to make such a check. It's also not necessarily 
possible to "prevent damage" anyway - if a driver does pass a bogus size 
for dma_unmap_single(..., DMA_FROM_DEVICE), SWIOTLB might be able to 
keep itself internally consistent, but it still can't prevent the arch 
code in the middle from invalidating the wrong cache lines and 
potentially corrupting adjacent memory.

In short, trying to work around broken drivers is a much worse idea than 
just fixing those drivers, and that's what we already have dma-debug for.

Robin.

RE: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb

[Eric Yang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.murphy@arm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:50 AM
> To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>; Eric Yang
> <yu.yang_3@nxp.com>; iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>; Kees Cook
> <keescook@chromium.org>; Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>;
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Al Viro
> <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>; Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>;
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>; Ingo Molnar
> <mingo@kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb
> 
> On 20/11/17 16:26, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:17:14AM +0000, Eric Yang wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >
> > Hi!
> >>
> >> During debug a  device only support 32bits DMA(Qualcomm Atheros AP) in
> our LS1043A 64bits ARM  SOC, we found that the invoke of dma_unmap_single -
> -> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single  will unmap the passed "size" anyway even when
> the "size" is incorrect.
> >>
> >> If the size is larger than it should, the extra entries in io_tlb_orig_addr array
> will be refilled by INVALID_PHYS_ADDR, and it will cause the bounce buffer copy
> not happen when the one who really used the mis-freed entries doing  DMA data
> transfers, and this will cause further unknow behaviors.
> >>
> >> Here we just fix it temporarily by adding a judge of the "size" in the
> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single, if it is larger than it deserves, just unmap the right
> size only. Like the code:
> >
> > Did the DMA debug API (CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG) help in figuring this issue
> as well?
> >
> >>
> >> [yangyu@titan dash-lts]$ git diff ./lib/swiotlb.c diff --git
> >> a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c index ad1d2962d129..58c97ede9d78
> >> 100644
> >> --- a/lib/swiotlb.c
> >> +++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
> >> @@ -591,7 +591,10 @@ void swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(struct device
> *hwdev, phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
> >>                   */
> >>                  for (i = index + nslots - 1; i >= index; i--) {
> >>                          io_tlb_list[i] = ++count;
> >> -                       io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
> >> +                      if(io_tlb_orig_addr[i]  != orig_addr)
> >> +                          printk("======size wrong, ally down ally down!===\n");
> >> +                      else
> >> +                         io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
> >>                  }
> >>                  /*
> >>                   * Step 2: merge the returned slots with the
> >> preceding slots,
> >>
> >> Although pass a right size of DMA buffer is the responsibility of  the drivers,
> but Is it useful to add some size check code to prevent  real damage happen?
> 
> There doesn't seem to be much good reason for SWIOTLB to be more special
> than other DMA API backends, and not all of them have enough internal state to
> be able to make such a check. It's also not necessarily possible to "prevent
> damage" anyway - if a driver does pass a bogus size for dma_unmap_single(...,
> DMA_FROM_DEVICE), SWIOTLB might be able to keep itself internally consistent,
> but it still can't prevent the arch code in the middle from invalidating the wrong
> cache lines and potentially corrupting adjacent memory.
> 
> In short, trying to work around broken drivers is a much worse idea than just
> fixing those drivers, and that's what we already have dma-debug for.
> 
> Robin.

Hi Robin,

I agree that hacking kernel to fix broken drivers is not acceptable, actually we spent days to fight driver supplier with  this, they do not want to change their code and want fix it directly in kernel. 

I tried Dma-debug yesterday, it works very well,  but I think only the size mismatch check may not be enough for the map entry corrupt situation, some run-time warning may be better when the real corruption happen.

For most of the dma-api backend, the size mismatch may do no harm at all, and even in SWIOTLB itself when the bounce buffer is not used, the size mismatch do no harm either. In our case, the same buggy driver works well when board has 2G DDR, but panic frequently in 4G DDR because of the use of bounce buffer and these corrupted map entries. it is hard to catch this kind of bugs, for when the corruption happen, the kernel has all kind of reasons to panic, but not even one may directly point to the real source.  

Add the warning messages is a big convenience for figure this kind of issues, at least to me and the AP driver supplier, such warnings may save weeks of hard debug time.

Regards,
Eric

Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

..snip..
> > There doesn't seem to be much good reason for SWIOTLB to be more special
> > than other DMA API backends, and not all of them have enough internal state to
> > be able to make such a check. It's also not necessarily possible to "prevent
> > damage" anyway - if a driver does pass a bogus size for dma_unmap_single(...,
> > DMA_FROM_DEVICE), SWIOTLB might be able to keep itself internally consistent,
> > but it still can't prevent the arch code in the middle from invalidating the wrong
> > cache lines and potentially corrupting adjacent memory.
> > 
> > In short, trying to work around broken drivers is a much worse idea than just
> > fixing those drivers, and that's what we already have dma-debug for.
> > 
> > Robin.
> 
> Hi Robin,
> 
> I agree that hacking kernel to fix broken drivers is not acceptable, actually we spent days to fight driver supplier with  this, they do not want to change their code and want fix it directly in kernel. 

You could upstream the driver? That way it will be fixed.

I am not sure if you are aware but there is a staging directory
as well in Linux.
> 
> I tried Dma-debug yesterday, it works very well,  but I think only the size mismatch check may not be enough for the map entry corrupt situation, some run-time warning may be better when the real corruption happen.
> 
> For most of the dma-api backend, the size mismatch may do no harm at all, and even in SWIOTLB itself when the bounce buffer is not used, the size mismatch do no harm either. In our case, the same buggy driver works well when board has 2G DDR, but panic frequently in 4G DDR because of the use of bounce buffer and these corrupted map entries. it is hard to catch this kind of bugs, for when the corruption happen, the kernel has all kind of reasons to panic, but not even one may directly point to the real source.  
> 
> Add the warning messages is a big convenience for figure this kind of issues, at least to me and the AP driver supplier, such warnings may save weeks of hard debug time.

I would prefer that all of those warning messages go in the DMA debug
API - as you can have multiple DMA different backends.

In other words, instead of being in one implementation it would make
much more sense to be in the generic API layer.

Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb

[Robin Murphy]

Hi Eric,

On 23/11/17 09:08, Eric Yang wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Robin Murphy
>> [mailto:robin.murphy@arm.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017
>> 12:50 AM To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>; Eric
>> Yang <yu.yang_3@nxp.com>; iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc:
>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>; Kees Cook 
>> <keescook@chromium.org>; Geert Uytterhoeven
>> <geert+renesas@glider.be>; Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; linux- kernel@vger.kernel.org; David
>> Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>;
>> Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>; Andrew Morton
>> <akpm@linux-foundation.org>; Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> 
>> Subject: Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in
>> swiotlb
>> 
>> On 20/11/17 16:26, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:17:14AM +0000, Eric Yang wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Hi!
>>>> 
>>>> During debug a  device only support 32bits DMA(Qualcomm Atheros
>>>> AP) in
>> our LS1043A 64bits ARM  SOC, we found that the invoke of
>> dma_unmap_single - -> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single  will unmap the
>> passed "size" anyway even when the "size" is incorrect.
>>>> 
>>>> If the size is larger than it should, the extra entries in
>>>> io_tlb_orig_addr array
>> will be refilled by INVALID_PHYS_ADDR, and it will cause the bounce
>> buffer copy not happen when the one who really used the mis-freed
>> entries doing  DMA data transfers, and this will cause further
>> unknow behaviors.
>>>> 
>>>> Here we just fix it temporarily by adding a judge of the "size"
>>>> in the
>> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single, if it is larger than it deserves, just
>> unmap the right size only. Like the code:
>>> 
>>> Did the DMA debug API (CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG) help in figuring
>>> this issue
>> as well?
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [yangyu@titan dash-lts]$ git diff ./lib/swiotlb.c diff --git 
>>>> a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c index
>>>> ad1d2962d129..58c97ede9d78 100644 --- a/lib/swiotlb.c +++
>>>> b/lib/swiotlb.c @@ -591,7 +591,10 @@ void
>>>> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(struct device
>> *hwdev, phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
>>>> */ for (i = index + nslots - 1; i >= index; i--) { 
>>>> io_tlb_list[i] = ++count; -
>>>> io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR; +
>>>> if(io_tlb_orig_addr[i]  != orig_addr) +
>>>> printk("======size wrong, ally down ally down!===\n"); +
>>>> else +                         io_tlb_orig_addr[i] =
>>>> INVALID_PHYS_ADDR; } /* * Step 2: merge the returned slots with
>>>> the preceding slots,
>>>> 
>>>> Although pass a right size of DMA buffer is the responsibility
>>>> of  the drivers,
>> but Is it useful to add some size check code to prevent  real
>> damage happen?
>> 
>> There doesn't seem to be much good reason for SWIOTLB to be more
>> special than other DMA API backends, and not all of them have
>> enough internal state to be able to make such a check. It's also
>> not necessarily possible to "prevent damage" anyway - if a driver
>> does pass a bogus size for dma_unmap_single(..., DMA_FROM_DEVICE),
>> SWIOTLB might be able to keep itself internally consistent, but it
>> still can't prevent the arch code in the middle from invalidating
>> the wrong cache lines and potentially corrupting adjacent memory.
>> 
>> In short, trying to work around broken drivers is a much worse idea
>> than just fixing those drivers, and that's what we already have
>> dma-debug for.
>> 
>> Robin.
> 
> Hi Robin,
> 
> I agree that hacking kernel to fix broken drivers is not acceptable,
> actually we spent days to fight driver supplier with  this, they do
> not want to change their code and want fix it directly in kernel.

So their code misuses an API in a manner which has never been correct, 
and is *impossible* for many common implementations of that API to 
validate, and they think it's upstream's job to work around it? Wow... 
you have my sympathy :)

> I tried Dma-debug yesterday, it works very well,  but I think only
> the size mismatch check may not be enough for the map entry corrupt
> situation, some run-time warning may be better when the real
> corruption happen.
> 
> For most of the dma-api backend, the size mismatch may do no harm at
> all, and even in SWIOTLB itself when the bounce buffer is not used,
> the size mismatch do no harm either. In our case, the same buggy
> driver works well when board has 2G DDR, but panic frequently in 4G
> DDR because of the use of bounce buffer and these corrupted map
> entries. it is hard to catch this kind of bugs, for when the
> corruption happen, the kernel has all kind of reasons to panic, but
> not even one may directly point to the real source.

As I said, just because things appear to work for your test cases on 
your system in the non-bounced case doesn't mean it's universally fine. 
If this device can be integrated into non-cache-coherent systems, then 
over-unmapping of device-writable buffers will eventually cause random 
corruption and data loss to somebody, somewhere, by invalidating dirty 
cache lines in the wrong place. If this device can be integrated behind 
an IOMMU (and if it's available with a PCI/PCIe interface, assume that 
it will be), then any over-unmapping will remove other devices' 
translations and cause random DMA problems which can be even less 
obvious to debug, and cannot be 'worked around' at all (certainly on the 
arm64 and x86 implementations).

> Add the warning messages is a big convenience for figure this kind of
> issues, at least to me and the AP driver supplier, such warnings may
> save weeks of hard debug time.

I don't get it - if driver developers are writing buggy drivers and not 
testing with basic well-established features like dma-debug, that's on 
the driver developers. Optimising for the case where BSP developers 
happen to get lucky with a particular configuration in which they might 
see driver bugs tickle warnings elsewhere doesn't seem sensible. Yes, it 
wouldn't be utterly unacceptable for SWIOTLB to print a warning when it 
detects some (address,size) combination that looks like it may have gone 
out-of-bounds, but at that point swiotlb_bounce() has presumably already 
done the damage of overwriting something it shouldn't have with who 
knows what, and it's still only one specific case - for instance, you 
wouldn't detect if the size is too small and you haven't bounced 
*enough* data, but that would still make your I/O misbehave.

In the end, it comes down to the difference between a) I/O going wrong 
and the system crashing, and b) the user *possibly* getting a warning 
they can't do anything about before I/O going wrong and the system 
crashing. Ultimately the driver developer still has to fix their bug, so 
why add code to occasionally antagonise the user when a developer 
feature tailor-made for catching such bugs immediately has existed for 
nearly 9 years?

Robin.

RE: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb

[Eric Yang]

Hi Robin,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.murphy@arm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 10:18 PM
> To: Eric Yang <yu.yang_3@nxp.com>; Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>; iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>; Kees Cook
> <keescook@chromium.org>; Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>;
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Al Viro
> <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>; Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>;
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>; Ingo Molnar
> <mingo@kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> On 23/11/17 09:08, Eric Yang wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message----- From: Robin Murphy
> >> [mailto:robin.murphy@arm.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017
> >> 12:50 AM To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>; Eric
> >> Yang <yu.yang_3@nxp.com>; iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc:
> >> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>; Kees Cook
> >> <keescook@chromium.org>; Geert Uytterhoeven
> >> <geert+renesas@glider.be>; Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; linux- kernel@vger.kernel.org; David
> >> Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>;
> >> Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>; Andrew Morton
> >> <akpm@linux-foundation.org>; Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> >> Subject: Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb
> >>
> >> On 20/11/17 16:26, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:17:14AM +0000, Eric Yang wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Hi!
> >>>>
> >>>> During debug a  device only support 32bits DMA(Qualcomm Atheros
> >>>> AP) in
> >> our LS1043A 64bits ARM  SOC, we found that the invoke of
> >> dma_unmap_single - -> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single  will unmap the passed
> >> "size" anyway even when the "size" is incorrect.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the size is larger than it should, the extra entries in
> >>>> io_tlb_orig_addr array
> >> will be refilled by INVALID_PHYS_ADDR, and it will cause the bounce
> >> buffer copy not happen when the one who really used the mis-freed
> >> entries doing  DMA data transfers, and this will cause further unknow
> >> behaviors.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here we just fix it temporarily by adding a judge of the "size"
> >>>> in the
> >> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single, if it is larger than it deserves, just
> >> unmap the right size only. Like the code:
> >>>
> >>> Did the DMA debug API (CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG) help in figuring this
> >>> issue
> >> as well?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [yangyu@titan dash-lts]$ git diff ./lib/swiotlb.c diff --git
> >>>> a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c index
> >>>> ad1d2962d129..58c97ede9d78 100644 --- a/lib/swiotlb.c +++
> >>>> b/lib/swiotlb.c @@ -591,7 +591,10 @@ void
> >>>> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(struct device
> >> *hwdev, phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
> >>>> */ for (i = index + nslots - 1; i >= index; i--) { io_tlb_list[i] =
> >>>> ++count; - io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR; +
> >>>> if(io_tlb_orig_addr[i]  != orig_addr) + printk("======size wrong,
> >>>> ally down ally down!===\n"); +
> >>>> else +                         io_tlb_orig_addr[i] =
> >>>> INVALID_PHYS_ADDR; } /* * Step 2: merge the returned slots with the
> >>>> preceding slots,
> >>>>
> >>>> Although pass a right size of DMA buffer is the responsibility of
> >>>> the drivers,
> >> but Is it useful to add some size check code to prevent  real damage
> >> happen?
> >>
> >> There doesn't seem to be much good reason for SWIOTLB to be more
> >> special than other DMA API backends, and not all of them have enough
> >> internal state to be able to make such a check. It's also not
> >> necessarily possible to "prevent damage" anyway - if a driver does
> >> pass a bogus size for dma_unmap_single(..., DMA_FROM_DEVICE), SWIOTLB
> >> might be able to keep itself internally consistent, but it still
> >> can't prevent the arch code in the middle from invalidating the wrong
> >> cache lines and potentially corrupting adjacent memory.
> >>
> >> In short, trying to work around broken drivers is a much worse idea
> >> than just fixing those drivers, and that's what we already have
> >> dma-debug for.
> >>
> >> Robin.
> >
> > Hi Robin,
> >
> > I agree that hacking kernel to fix broken drivers is not acceptable,
> > actually we spent days to fight driver supplier with  this, they do
> > not want to change their code and want fix it directly in kernel.
> 
> So their code misuses an API in a manner which has never been correct, and is
> *impossible* for many common implementations of that API to validate, and
> they think it's upstream's job to work around it? Wow...
> you have my sympathy :)
> 

Yeah, as a BSP supplier we are always the first suspect when anything happen :)


> > I tried Dma-debug yesterday, it works very well,  but I think only the
> > size mismatch check may not be enough for the map entry corrupt
> > situation, some run-time warning may be better when the real
> > corruption happen.
> >
> > For most of the dma-api backend, the size mismatch may do no harm at
> > all, and even in SWIOTLB itself when the bounce buffer is not used,
> > the size mismatch do no harm either. In our case, the same buggy
> > driver works well when board has 2G DDR, but panic frequently in 4G
> > DDR because of the use of bounce buffer and these corrupted map
> > entries. it is hard to catch this kind of bugs, for when the
> > corruption happen, the kernel has all kind of reasons to panic, but
> > not even one may directly point to the real source.
> 
> As I said, just because things appear to work for your test cases on your system
> in the non-bounced case doesn't mean it's universally fine.
> If this device can be integrated into non-cache-coherent systems, then over-
> unmapping of device-writable buffers will eventually cause random corruption
> and data loss to somebody, somewhere, by invalidating dirty cache lines in the
> wrong place. If this device can be integrated behind an IOMMU (and if it's
> available with a PCI/PCIe interface, assume that it will be), then any over-
> unmapping will remove other devices'
> translations and cause random DMA problems which can be even less obvious to
> debug, and cannot be 'worked around' at all (certainly on the
> arm64 and x86 implementations).
> 

Yes, for the performance issue of swiotlb, we may be forced to enable SMMU, as you said the broken driver may not  workaround at all by kernel hack.

> > Add the warning messages is a big convenience for figure this kind of
> > issues, at least to me and the AP driver supplier, such warnings may
> > save weeks of hard debug time.
> 
> I don't get it - if driver developers are writing buggy drivers and not testing with
> basic well-established features like dma-debug, that's on the driver developers.
> Optimising for the case where BSP developers happen to get lucky with a
> particular configuration in which they might see driver bugs tickle warnings
> elsewhere doesn't seem sensible. Yes, it wouldn't be utterly unacceptable for
> SWIOTLB to print a warning when it detects some (address,size) combination
> that looks like it may have gone out-of-bounds, but at that point
> swiotlb_bounce() has presumably already done the damage of overwriting
> something it shouldn't have with who knows what, and it's still only one specific
> case - for instance, you wouldn't detect if the size is too small and you haven't
> bounced
> *enough* data, but that would still make your I/O misbehave.
> 
> In the end, it comes down to the difference between a) I/O going wrong and the
> system crashing, and b) the user *possibly* getting a warning they can't do
> anything about before I/O going wrong and the system crashing. Ultimately the
> driver developer still has to fix their bug, so why add code to occasionally
> antagonise the user when a developer feature tailor-made for catching such
> bugs immediately has existed for nearly 9 years?
> 
> Robin.

You are right. Thanks a lot for all the information and the time spent and also the patience.

Regards,
Eric

RE: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb

[Eric Yang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:konrad.wilk@oracle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:27 AM
> To: Eric Yang <yu.yang_3@nxp.com>; iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>;
> Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>; David Miller
> <davem@davemloft.net>; Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>; Geert
> Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>; Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>;
> Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>; Daniel Borkmann
> <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> Subject: Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb
> 
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:17:14AM +0000, Eric Yang wrote:
> > Hi all,
> 
> Hi!

Hi  Konrad,
> >
> > During debug a  device only support 32bits DMA(Qualcomm Atheros AP) in our
> LS1043A 64bits ARM  SOC, we found that the invoke of dma_unmap_single -->
> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single  will unmap the passed "size" anyway even when the
> "size" is incorrect.
> >
> > If the size is larger than it should, the extra entries in io_tlb_orig_addr array
> will be refilled by INVALID_PHYS_ADDR, and it will cause the bounce buffer copy
> not happen when the one who really used the mis-freed entries doing  DMA data
> transfers, and this will cause further unknow behaviors.
> >
> > Here we just fix it temporarily by adding a judge of the "size" in the
> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single, if it is larger than it deserves, just unmap the right
> size only. Like the code:
> 
> Did the DMA debug API (CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG) help in figuring this issue as
> well?
> 

I have just enabled this config and move off the kernel fix and test, there seems the debug API 
has no output for this size incorrect issue. For I only enable the config and no other operations 
and my kernel is 4.9, do I missed something?

I confirm that the debug API is working, for there are other drivers triggered its warning output 
like:
 
caam_jr 1710000.jr: DMA-API: device driver tries to free DMA memory it has not allocated 
[device address=0x6800458400000000]

> >
> > [yangyu@titan dash-lts]$ git diff ./lib/swiotlb.c diff --git
> > a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c index ad1d2962d129..58c97ede9d78
> > 100644
> > --- a/lib/swiotlb.c
> > +++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
> > @@ -591,7 +591,10 @@ void swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(struct device *hwdev,
> phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
> >                  */
> >                 for (i = index + nslots - 1; i >= index; i--) {
> >                         io_tlb_list[i] = ++count;
> > -                       io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
> > +                      if(io_tlb_orig_addr[i]  != orig_addr)
> > +                          printk("======size wrong, ally down ally down!===\n");
> > +                      else
> > +                         io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
> >                 }
> >                 /*
> >                  * Step 2: merge the returned slots with the preceding
> > slots,
> >
> > Although pass a right size of DMA buffer is the responsibility of  the drivers, but
> Is it useful to add some size check code to prevent  real damage happen?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eric

Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb

[Robin Murphy]

On 22/11/17 03:23, Eric Yang wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:konrad.wilk@oracle.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:27 AM
>> To: Eric Yang <yu.yang_3@nxp.com>; iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>;
>> Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>; David Miller
>> <davem@davemloft.net>; Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>; Geert
>> Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>; Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>;
>> Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>; Daniel Borkmann
>> <daniel@iogearbox.net>
>> Subject: Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:17:14AM +0000, Eric Yang wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>
>> Hi!
> 
> Hi  Konrad,
>>>
>>> During debug a  device only support 32bits DMA(Qualcomm Atheros AP) in our
>> LS1043A 64bits ARM  SOC, we found that the invoke of dma_unmap_single -->
>> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single  will unmap the passed "size" anyway even when the
>> "size" is incorrect.
>>>
>>> If the size is larger than it should, the extra entries in io_tlb_orig_addr array
>> will be refilled by INVALID_PHYS_ADDR, and it will cause the bounce buffer copy
>> not happen when the one who really used the mis-freed entries doing  DMA data
>> transfers, and this will cause further unknow behaviors.
>>>
>>> Here we just fix it temporarily by adding a judge of the "size" in the
>> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single, if it is larger than it deserves, just unmap the right
>> size only. Like the code:
>>
>> Did the DMA debug API (CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG) help in figuring this issue as
>> well?
>>
> 
> I have just enabled this config and move off the kernel fix and test, there seems the debug API
> has no output for this size incorrect issue. For I only enable the config and no other operations
> and my kernel is 4.9, do I missed something?
> 
> I confirm that the debug API is working, for there are other drivers triggered its warning output
> like:
>   
> caam_jr 1710000.jr: DMA-API: device driver tries to free DMA memory it has not allocated
> [device address=0x6800458400000000]

By default, dma-debug will only log the first error it sees - you can 
adjust this with the "num_errors" or "all_errors" sysfs controls, and 
use the driver filter to hide errors from other drivers if necessary.

Robin.

>>>
>>> [yangyu@titan dash-lts]$ git diff ./lib/swiotlb.c diff --git
>>> a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c index ad1d2962d129..58c97ede9d78
>>> 100644
>>> --- a/lib/swiotlb.c
>>> +++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
>>> @@ -591,7 +591,10 @@ void swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(struct device *hwdev,
>> phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
>>>                   */
>>>                  for (i = index + nslots - 1; i >= index; i--) {
>>>                          io_tlb_list[i] = ++count;
>>> -                       io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
>>> +                      if(io_tlb_orig_addr[i]  != orig_addr)
>>> +                          printk("======size wrong, ally down ally down!===\n");
>>> +                      else
>>> +                         io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
>>>                  }
>>>                  /*
>>>                   * Step 2: merge the returned slots with the preceding
>>> slots,
>>>
>>> Although pass a right size of DMA buffer is the responsibility of  the drivers, but
>> Is it useful to add some size check code to prevent  real damage happen?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> iommu mailing list
> iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
> 

RE: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb

[Eric Yang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.murphy@arm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 9:15 PM
> To: Eric Yang <yu.yang_3@nxp.com>; Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>; iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>; Kees Cook
> <keescook@chromium.org>; Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>;
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Al Viro
> <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>; Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>;
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>; Ingo Molnar
> <mingo@kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb
> 
> On 22/11/17 03:23, Eric Yang wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:konrad.wilk@oracle.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:27 AM
> >> To: Eric Yang <yu.yang_3@nxp.com>; iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
> >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; Andrew Morton
> >> <akpm@linux-foundation.org>; Andrey Ryabinin
> >> <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>; David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Ingo
> >> Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>; Geert Uytterhoeven
> >> <geert+renesas@glider.be>; Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>; Kees
> >> Cook <keescook@chromium.org>; Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> >> Subject: Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:17:14AM +0000, Eric Yang wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >
> > Hi  Konrad,
> >>>
> >>> During debug a  device only support 32bits DMA(Qualcomm Atheros AP)
> >>> in our
> >> LS1043A 64bits ARM  SOC, we found that the invoke of dma_unmap_single
> >> --> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single  will unmap the passed "size" anyway
> >> even when the "size" is incorrect.
> >>>
> >>> If the size is larger than it should, the extra entries in
> >>> io_tlb_orig_addr array
> >> will be refilled by INVALID_PHYS_ADDR, and it will cause the bounce
> >> buffer copy not happen when the one who really used the mis-freed
> >> entries doing  DMA data transfers, and this will cause further unknow
> behaviors.
> >>>
> >>> Here we just fix it temporarily by adding a judge of the "size" in
> >>> the
> >> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single, if it is larger than it deserves, just
> >> unmap the right size only. Like the code:
> >>
> >> Did the DMA debug API (CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG) help in figuring this
> >> issue as well?
> >>
> >
> > I have just enabled this config and move off the kernel fix and test,
> > there seems the debug API has no output for this size incorrect issue.
> > For I only enable the config and no other operations and my kernel is 4.9, do I
> missed something?
> >
> > I confirm that the debug API is working, for there are other drivers
> > triggered its warning output
> > like:
> >
> > caam_jr 1710000.jr: DMA-API: device driver tries to free DMA memory it
> > has not allocated [device address=0x6800458400000000]
> 
> By default, dma-debug will only log the first error it sees - you can adjust this
> with the "num_errors" or "all_errors" sysfs controls, and use the driver filter to
> hide errors from other drivers if necessary.
> 
> Robin.
> 
Hi Robin,

I've caught the size mismatch warning with the debug API, thanks a lot for the help.

Regards,
Eric

> >>>
> >>> [yangyu@titan dash-lts]$ git diff ./lib/swiotlb.c diff --git
> >>> a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c index ad1d2962d129..58c97ede9d78
> >>> 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/swiotlb.c
> >>> +++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
> >>> @@ -591,7 +591,10 @@ void swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(struct device
> >>> *hwdev,
> >> phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
> >>>                   */
> >>>                  for (i = index + nslots - 1; i >= index; i--) {
> >>>                          io_tlb_list[i] = ++count;
> >>> -                       io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
> >>> +                      if(io_tlb_orig_addr[i]  != orig_addr)
> >>> +                          printk("======size wrong, ally down ally down!===\n");
> >>> +                      else
> >>> +                         io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
> >>>                  }
> >>>                  /*
> >>>                   * Step 2: merge the returned slots with the
> >>> preceding slots,
> >>>
> >>> Although pass a right size of DMA buffer is the responsibility of
> >>> the drivers, but
> >> Is it useful to add some size check code to prevent  real damage happen?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Eric
> > _______________________________________________
> > iommu mailing list
> > iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
> > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flis
> >
> ts.linuxfoundation.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fiommu&data=02%7C01%7Cyu.
> >
> yang_3%40nxp.com%7Cf3851e3c8ae24f341b3608d531ab1165%7C686ea1d3bc
> 2b4c6f
> >
> a92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636469533155971955&sdata=7PnqUlgRlJq2H
> sXmTf
> > CmEUuWaBfUhzSd33UoK4li1Ro%3D&reserved=0
> >