[PATCH v15 06/12] swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing
Claire Chang
tientzu at chromium.org
Mon Jul 5 17:29:34 AEST 2021
On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 1:55 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Will and Robin,
>
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 04:13:50PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > On 2021-07-02 14:58, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Hi Nathan,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 12:52:20AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > > On 7/1/2021 12:40 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 08:56:51AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:43:48PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 05:17:27PM +0800, Claire Chang wrote:
> > > > > > > > `BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: 00000000003a8290` and
> > > > > > > > the fact it crashed at `_raw_spin_lock_irqsave` look like the memory
> > > > > > > > (maybe dev->dma_io_tlb_mem) was corrupted?
> > > > > > > > The dev->dma_io_tlb_mem should be set here
> > > > > > > > (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/pci/probe.c#n2528)
> > > > > > > > through device_initialize.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm less sure about this. 'dma_io_tlb_mem' should be pointing at
> > > > > > > 'io_tlb_default_mem', which is a page-aligned allocation from memblock.
> > > > > > > The spinlock is at offset 0x24 in that structure, and looking at the
> > > > > > > register dump from the crash:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jun 29 18:28:42 hp-4300G kernel: RSP: 0018:ffffadb4013db9e8 EFLAGS: 00010006
> > > > > > > Jun 29 18:28:42 hp-4300G kernel: RAX: 00000000003a8290 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: ffff8900572ad580
> > > > > > > Jun 29 18:28:42 hp-4300G kernel: RDX: ffff89005653f024 RSI: 00000000000c0000 RDI: 0000000000001d17
> > > > > > > Jun 29 18:28:42 hp-4300G kernel: RBP: 000000000a20d000 R08: 00000000000c0000 R09: 0000000000000000
> > > > > > > Jun 29 18:28:42 hp-4300G kernel: R10: 000000000a20d000 R11: ffff89005653f000 R12: 0000000000000212
> > > > > > > Jun 29 18:28:42 hp-4300G kernel: R13: 0000000000001000 R14: 0000000000000002 R15: 0000000000200000
> > > > > > > Jun 29 18:28:42 hp-4300G kernel: FS: 00007f1f8898ea40(0000) GS:ffff890057280000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > > > > > Jun 29 18:28:42 hp-4300G kernel: CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > > > > > Jun 29 18:28:42 hp-4300G kernel: CR2: 00000000003a8290 CR3: 00000001020d0000 CR4: 0000000000350ee0
> > > > > > > Jun 29 18:28:42 hp-4300G kernel: Call Trace:
> > > > > > > Jun 29 18:28:42 hp-4300G kernel: _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x39/0x50
> > > > > > > Jun 29 18:28:42 hp-4300G kernel: swiotlb_tbl_map_single+0x12b/0x4c0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then that correlates with R11 holding the 'dma_io_tlb_mem' pointer and
> > > > > > > RDX pointing at the spinlock. Yet RAX is holding junk :/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree that enabling KASAN would be a good idea, but I also think we
> > > > > > > probably need to get some more information out of swiotlb_tbl_map_single()
> > > > > > > to see see what exactly is going wrong in there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can certainly enable KASAN and if there is any debug print I can add
> > > > > > or dump anything, let me know!
> > > > >
> > > > > I bit the bullet and took v5.13 with swiotlb/for-linus-5.14 merged in, built
> > > > > x86 defconfig and ran it on my laptop. However, it seems to work fine!
> > > > >
> > > > > Please can you share your .config?
> > > >
> > > > Sure thing, it is attached. It is just Arch Linux's config run through
> > > > olddefconfig. The original is below in case you need to diff it.
> > > >
> > > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/archlinux/svntogit-packages/9045405dc835527164f3034b3ceb9a67c7a53cd4/trunk/config
> > > >
> > > > If there is anything more that I can provide, please let me know.
> > >
> > > I eventually got this booting (for some reason it was causing LD to SEGV
> > > trying to link it for a while...) and sadly it works fine on my laptop. Hmm.
>
> Seems like it might be something specific to the amdgpu module?
>
> > > Did you manage to try again with KASAN?
>
> Yes, it took a few times to reproduce the issue but I did manage to get
> a dmesg, please find it attached. I build from commit 7d31f1c65cc9 ("swiotlb:
> fix implicit debugfs declarations") in Konrad's tree.
Looking at the logs, the use-after-free bug looked somehow relevant
(and it's nvme again. Qian's crash is about nvme too):
[ 2.468288] BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in __iommu_dma_unmap_swiotlb+0x64/0xb0
[ 2.468288] Read of size 8 at addr ffff8881d7830000 by task swapper/0/0
[ 2.468288] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.12.0-rc3-debug #1
[ 2.468288] Hardware name: HP HP Desktop M01-F1xxx/87D6, BIOS F.12 12/17/2020
[ 2.468288] Call Trace:
[ 2.468288] <IRQ>
[ 2.479433] dump_stack+0x9c/0xcf
[ 2.479433] print_address_description.constprop.0+0x18/0x130
[ 2.479433] ? __iommu_dma_unmap_swiotlb+0x64/0xb0
[ 2.479433] kasan_report.cold+0x7f/0x111
[ 2.479433] ? __iommu_dma_unmap_swiotlb+0x64/0xb0
[ 2.479433] __iommu_dma_unmap_swiotlb+0x64/0xb0
[ 2.479433] nvme_pci_complete_rq+0x73/0x130
[ 2.479433] blk_complete_reqs+0x6f/0x80
[ 2.479433] __do_softirq+0xfc/0x3be
[ 2.479433] irq_exit_rcu+0xce/0x120
[ 2.479433] common_interrupt+0x80/0xa0
[ 2.479433] </IRQ>
[ 2.479433] asm_common_interrupt+0x1e/0x40
[ 2.479433] RIP: 0010:cpuidle_enter_state+0xf9/0x590
I wonder if this ended up unmapping something wrong and messing up the
dev->dma_io_tlb_mem (i.e. io_tlb_default_mem)?
Could you try this patch on top of 7d31f1c65cc9? This patch helps
check if we try to unmap the wrong address.
```
diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
index b7f76bca89bf..5ac08d50a394 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
@@ -613,6 +613,21 @@ void swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(struct device *dev,
phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
size_t mapping_size, enum dma_data_direction dir,
unsigned long attrs)
{
+ struct io_tlb_mem *mem = dev->dma_io_tlb_mem;
+ unsigned int offset = swiotlb_align_offset(dev, tlb_addr);
+ int index;
+
+ if (!is_swiotlb_buffer(dev, tlb_addr - offset)) {
+ dev_err(dev, "%s: attempt to unmap invalid address
(0x%llx, offset=%u)\n", __func__, tlb_addr, offset);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ index = (tlb_addr - offset - mem->start) >> IO_TLB_SHIFT;
+ if (mem->slots[index].orig_addr == INVALID_PHYS_ADDR) {
+ dev_err(dev, "%s: memory is not mapped before (0x%llx,
offset=%u)\n", __func__, tlb_addr, offset);
+ return;
+ }
+
/*
* First, sync the memory before unmapping the entry
*/
```
It might be useful to have CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y, CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG_ON=y
and line numbers (scripts/decode_stacktrace.sh) too.
Thank you so much for helping!
>
> > > It might also be worth taking the IOMMU out of the equation, since that
> > > interfaces differently with SWIOTLB and I couldn't figure out the code path
> > > from the log you provided. What happens if you boot with "amd_iommu=off
> > > swiotlb=force"?
> >
> > Oh, now there's a thing... the chat from the IOMMU API in the boot log
> > implies that the IOMMU *should* be in the picture - we see that default
> > domains are IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA default and the GPU 0000:0c:00.0 was added to a
> > group. That means dev->dma_ops should be set and DMA API calls should be
> > going through iommu-dma, yet the callstack in the crash says we've gone
> > straight from dma_map_page_attrs() to swiotlb_map(), implying the inline
> > dma_direct_map_page() path.
> >
> > If dev->dma_ops didn't look right in the first place, it's perhaps less
> > surprising that dev->dma_io_tlb_mem might be wild as well. It doesn't seem
> > plausible that we should have a race between initialising the device and
> > probing its driver, so maybe the whole dev pointer is getting trampled
> > earlier in the callchain (or is fundamentally wrong to begin with, but from
> > a quick skim of the amdgpu code it did look like adev->dev and adev->pdev
> > are appropriately set early on by amdgpu_pci_probe()).
> >
> > > (although word of warning here: i915 dies horribly on my laptop if I pass
> > > swiotlb=force, even with the distro 5.10 kernel)
> >
> > FWIW I'd imagine you probably need to massively increase the SWIOTLB buffer
> > size to have hope of that working.
>
> Is it worth trying this still then?
>
> Cheers,
> Nathan
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list