On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:20:46AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

+ hch

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 08:59:22PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

On 24.08.21 20:46, Robin Murphy wrote:

quoted

On 2021-08-24 19:28, Mike Rapoport wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 06:37:41PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 03:40:47PM +0200, Alex Bee wrote:

quoted

it seems there is a regression in arm64 memory mapping in 5.14, since it
fails on Rockchip RK3328 when the pl330 dmac tries to map with:

 ------------[ cut here ]------------
 WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 373 at kernel/dma/mapping.c:235 dma_map_resource+0x68/0xc0
 Modules linked in: spi_rockchip(+) fuse
 CPU: 2 PID: 373 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 5.14.0-rc7 #1
 Hardware name: Pine64 Rock64 (DT)
 pstate: 80000005 (Nzcv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO BTYPE=--)
 pc : dma_map_resource+0x68/0xc0
 lr : pl330_prep_slave_fifo+0x78/0xd0
 sp : ffff800012102ae0
 x29: ffff800012102ae0 x28: ffff000005c94800 x27: 0000000000000000
 x26: ffff000000566bd0 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: 0000000000000001
 x23: 0000000000000002 x22: ffff000000628c00 x21: 0000000000000001
 x20: ffff000000566bd0 x19: 0000000000000001 x18: 0000000000000000
 x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: 0000000000000000
 x14: 0000000000000277 x13: 0000000000000001 x12: 0000000000000000
 x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 00000000000008e0 x9 : ffff800012102a80
 x8 : ffff000000d14b80 x7 : ffff0000fe7b12f0 x6 : ffff0000fe7b1100
 x5 : fffffc000000000f x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000000001
 x2 : 0000000000000001 x1 : 00000000ff190800 x0 : ffff000000628c00
 Call trace:
   dma_map_resource+0x68/0xc0
   pl330_prep_slave_sg+0x58/0x220
   rockchip_spi_prepare_dma+0xd8/0x2c0 [spi_rockchip]
   rockchip_spi_transfer_one+0x294/0x3d8 [spi_rockchip]

[...]

quoted

Note: This does not relate to the spi driver - when disabling this device in
the device tree it fails for any other (i2s, for instance) which uses dma.
Commenting out the failing check at [1], however, helps and the mapping
works again.

quoted

Do you know which address dma_map_resource() is trying to map (maybe
add some printk())? It's not supposed to map RAM, hence the warning.
Random guess, the address is 0xff190800 (based on the x1 above but the
regs might as well be mangled).

0xff190800 will cause this warning for sure. It has a memory map, but it is
not RAM so old version of pfn_valid() would return 0 and the new one
returns 1.

How does that happen, though? It's not a memory address, and it's not
even within the bounds of anywhere there should or could be memory. This
SoC has a simple memory map - everything from 0 to 0xfeffffff goes to
the DRAM controller (which may not all be populated, and may have pieces
carved out by secure firmware), while 0xff000000-0xffffffff is MMIO. Why
do we have pages (or at least the assumption of pages) for somewhere
which by all rights should not have them?

Simple: we allocate the vmemmap for whole sections (e.g., 128 MiB) to avoid
any such hacks. If there is a memory hole, it gets a memmap as well.

Tricking pfn_valid() into returning "false" where we actually have a memmap
only makes it look like there is no memmap; but there is one, and
it's PG_reserved.

I can see the documentation for pfn_valid() does not claim anything more
than the presence of an memmap entry. But I wonder whether the confusion
is wider-spread than just the DMA code. At a quick grep, try_ram_remap()
assumes __va() can be used on pfn_valid(), though I suspect it relies on
the calling function to check that the resource was RAM. The arm64
kern_addr_valid() returns true based on pfn_valid() and kcore.c uses
standard memcpy on it, which wouldn't work for I/O (should we change
this check to pfn_is_map_memory() for arm64?).

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Either pfn_valid() gets confused in 5.14 or something is wrong with the
DT. I have a suspicion it's the former since reverting the above commit
makes it disappear.

I think pfn_valid() actually behaves as expected but the caller is wrong
because pfn_valid != RAM (this applies btw to !arm64 as well).

	/* Don't allow RAM to be mapped */
	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(pfn_valid(PHYS_PFN(phys_addr))))
		return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;

Alex, can you please try this patch:

That will certainly paper over the issue, but it's avoiding the question
of what went wrong with the memory map in the first place. The comment
is indeed a bit inaccurate, but ultimately dma_map_resource() exists for
addresses that would be wrong to pass to dma_map_page(), so I believe
pfn_valid() is still the correct check.

If we want to check for RAM, pfn_valid() would be wrong. If we want to check
for "is there a memmap, for whatever lives or does not live there",
pfn_valid() is the right check.

So what should the DMA code use instead? Last time we needed something
similar, the recommendation was to use pfn_to_online_page(). Mike is
suggesting memblock_is_memory().

I did some digging and it seems that the most "generic" way to check if a
page is in RAM is page_is_ram(). It's not 100% bullet proof as it'll give
false negatives for architectures that do not register "System RAM", but
those are not using dma_map_resource() anyway and, apparently, never would.

Alex, can you test this patch please?

From 35586e9dbbdb47962cb0f3803bc650d77867905a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mike Rapoport <redacted>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:01:08 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] dma-mapping: use page_is_ram to ensure RAM is not mapped

dma_map_resource() uses pfn_valid() to ensure the range is not RAM.
However, pfn_valid() only checks for availability of the memory map for a
PFN but it does not ensure that the PFN is actually backed by RAM.

Replace pfn_valid() with page_is_ram() that does verify whether a PFN is in
RAM or not.

Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <redacted>
---
 kernel/dma/mapping.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/dma/mapping.c b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
index 7ee5284bff58..dc6064a213a2 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/mapping.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/mapping.c

@@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ dma_addr_t dma_map_resource(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t phys_addr,
 		return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;
 
 	/* Don't allow RAM to be mapped */
-	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(pfn_valid(PHYS_PFN(phys_addr))))
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(page_is_ram(PHYS_PFN(phys_addr))))
 		return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;
 
 	if (dma_map_direct(dev, ops))

-- 
2.28.0

 
> Given how later we are in the -rc cycle, I suggest we revert Anshuman's
> commit 16c9afc77660 ("arm64/mm: drop HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID") and try to
> assess the implications in 5.15 (the patch doesn't seem to have the
> arm64 maintainers' ack anyway ;)).
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Catalin

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.