On 2020-09-15 11:09 a.m., Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:40:39AM -0400, Thomas Tai wrote:
+++ b/include/linux/dma-direct.h
@@ -62,9 +62,6 @@ static inline bool dma_capable(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t
addr, size_t size,
{
dma_addr_t end = addr + size - 1;
- if (!dev->dma_mask)
- return false;
-
I am concerned that some drivers may rely on this NULL checking. Would you
think we can keep this checking and use the following WARN_ON_ONCE()?
dma_capable is not a helper for drivers, but just for dma-direct
and related code. And this patch adds the checks for the three
places how we call into the ->map* methods.
Hi Christoph,
I tried out the suggested changes, and it successfully warned the null
pointer without panic. I notice that there are some places outside the
dma-direct, which calls dma_capable().
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9-rc5/source/arch/x86/kernel/amd_gart_64.c#L187
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9-rc5/source/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c#L387
Also, if I remove the null checking in dma_capable(), I may run into the
risk of a null pointer dereference within the function.
@@ -62,9 +62,6 @@ static inline bool dma_capable(struct device *dev,
dma_addr_t addr, size_t size,
{
dma_addr_t end = addr + size - 1;
- if (!dev->dma_mask)
- return false;
-
if (is_ram && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT) &&
min(addr, end) < phys_to_dma(dev, PFN_PHYS(min_low_pfn)))
return false;
return end <= min_not_zero(*dev->dma_mask, dev->bus_dma_limit);
^
|
** risk of a null dereference **
}
Given that the WARN_ON_ONCE already did the intended warning, would you
be ok that I keep the null checking in dma_capable()?
Thank you,
Thomas
