diff mbox series

[v14,06/12] swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing

Message ID 20210619034043.199220-7-tientzu@chromium.org (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series Restricted DMA | expand

Commit Message

Claire Chang June 19, 2021, 3:40 a.m. UTC
Propagate the swiotlb_force into io_tlb_default_mem->force_bounce and
use it to determine whether to bounce the data or not. This will be
useful later to allow for different pools.

Signed-off-by: Claire Chang <tientzu@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Tested-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c |  2 +-
 include/linux/swiotlb.h   | 11 +++++++++++
 kernel/dma/direct.c       |  2 +-
 kernel/dma/direct.h       |  2 +-
 kernel/dma/swiotlb.c      |  4 ++++
 5 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Qian Cai June 23, 2021, 4:39 p.m. UTC | #1
On 6/18/2021 11:40 PM, Claire Chang wrote:
> Propagate the swiotlb_force into io_tlb_default_mem->force_bounce and
> use it to determine whether to bounce the data or not. This will be
> useful later to allow for different pools.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Claire Chang <tientzu@chromium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Tested-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
> Tested-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>

Reverting the rest of the series up to this patch fixed a boot crash with NVMe on today's linux-next.

[   22.286574][    T7] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address dfff80000000000e
[   22.295225][    T7] Mem abort info:
[   22.298743][    T7]   ESR = 0x96000004
[   22.302496][    T7]   EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits
[   22.308525][    T7]   SET = 0, FnV = 0
[   22.312274][    T7]   EA = 0, S1PTW = 0
[   22.316131][    T7]   FSC = 0x04: level 0 translation fault
[   22.321704][    T7] Data abort info:
[   22.325278][    T7]   ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004
[   22.329840][    T7]   CM = 0, WnR = 0
[   22.333503][    T7] [dfff80000000000e] address between user and kernel address ranges
[   22.338543][  T256] igb 0006:01:00.0: Intel(R) Gigabit Ethernet Network Connection
[   22.341400][    T7] Internal error: Oops: 96000004 [#1] SMP
[   22.348915][  T256] igb 0006:01:00.0: eth0: (PCIe:2.5Gb/s:Width x1) 4c:38:d5:09:c8:83
[   22.354458][    T7] Modules linked in: igb(+) i2c_algo_bit nvme mlx5_core(+) i2c_core nvme_core firmware_class
[   22.362512][  T256] igb 0006:01:00.0: eth0: PBA No: G69016-004
[   22.372287][    T7] CPU: 13 PID: 7 Comm: kworker/u64:0 Not tainted 5.13.0-rc7-next-20210623+ #47
[   22.372293][    T7] Hardware name: MiTAC RAPTOR EV-883832-X3-0001/RAPTOR, BIOS 1.6 06/28/2020
[   22.372298][    T7] Workqueue: nvme-reset-wq nvme_reset_work [nvme]
[   22.378145][  T256] igb 0006:01:00.0: Using MSI-X interrupts. 4 rx queue(s), 4 tx queue(s)
[   22.386901][    T7] 
[   22.386905][    T7] pstate: 10000005 (nzcV daif -PAN -UAO -TCO BTYPE=--)
[   22.386910][    T7] pc : dma_direct_map_sg+0x304/0x8f0

is_swiotlb_force_bounce at /usr/src/linux-next/./include/linux/swiotlb.h:119
(inlined by) dma_direct_map_page at /usr/src/linux-next/kernel/dma/direct.h:90
(inlined by) dma_direct_map_sg at /usr/src/linux-next/kernel/dma/direct.c:428

[   22.386919][    T7] lr : dma_map_sg_attrs+0x6c/0x118
[   22.386924][    T7] sp : ffff80001dc8eac0
[   22.386926][    T7] x29: ffff80001dc8eac0 x28: ffff0000199e70b0 x27: 0000000000000000
[   22.386935][    T7] x26: ffff000847ee7000 x25: ffff80001158e570 x24: 0000000000000002
[   22.386943][    T7] x23: dfff800000000000 x22: 0000000000000100 x21: ffff0000199e7460
[   22.386951][    T7] x20: ffff0000199e7488 x19: 0000000000000001 x18: ffff000010062670
[   22.386955][  T253] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address dfff80000000000e
[   22.386958][    T7] x17: ffff8000109f6a90 x16: ffff8000109e1b4c x15: ffff800009303420
[   22.386965][  T253] Mem abort info:
[   22.386967][    T7] x14: 0000000000000001 x13: ffff80001158e000
[   22.386970][  T253]   ESR = 0x96000004
[   22.386972][    T7]  x12: 1fffe00108fdce01
[   22.386975][  T253]   EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits
[   22.386976][    T7] x11: 1fffe00108fdce03 x10: ffff000847ee700c x9 : 0000000000000004
[   22.386981][  T253]   SET = 0, FnV = 0
[   22.386983][    T7] 
[   22.386985][    T7] x8 : ffff700003b91d72
[   22.386986][  T253]   EA = 0, S1PTW = 0
[   22.386987][    T7]  x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 000000000000000e
[   22.386990][  T253]   FSC = 0x04: level 0 translation fault
[   22.386992][    T7] 
[   22.386994][    T7] x5 : dfff800000000000
[   22.386995][  T253] Data abort info:
[   22.386997][    T7]  x4 : 00000008c7ede000
[   22.386999][  T253]   ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004
[   22.386999][    T7]  x3 : 00000008c7ede000
[   22.387003][    T7] x2 : 0000000000001000
[   22.387003][  T253]   CM = 0, WnR = 0
[   22.387006][    T7]  x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000071
[   22.387008][  T253] [dfff80000000000e] address between user and kernel address ranges
[   22.387011][    T7] 
[   22.387013][    T7] Call trace:
[   22.387016][    T7]  dma_direct_map_sg+0x304/0x8f0
[   22.387022][    T7]  dma_map_sg_attrs+0x6c/0x118
[   22.387026][    T7]  nvme_map_data+0x2ec/0x21d8 [nvme]
[   22.387040][    T7]  nvme_queue_rq+0x274/0x3f0 [nvme]
[   22.387052][    T7]  blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list+0x2ec/0x18a0
[   22.387060][    T7]  __blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x2a0/0x3e8
[   22.387065][    T7]  blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0xa4/0x100
[   22.387070][    T7]  __blk_mq_run_hw_queue+0x148/0x1d8
[   22.387075][    T7]  __blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue+0x3f8/0x730
[   22.414539][  T269] igb 0006:01:00.0 enP6p1s0: renamed from eth0
[   22.418957][    T7]  blk_mq_run_hw_queue+0x148/0x248
[   22.418969][    T7]  blk_mq_sched_insert_request+0x2a4/0x330
[   22.418975][    T7]  blk_execute_rq_nowait+0xc8/0x118
[   22.418981][    T7]  blk_execute_rq+0xd4/0x188
[   22.453203][  T255] udevadm (255) used greatest stack depth: 57408 bytes left
[   22.456504][    T7]  __nvme_submit_sync_cmd+0x4e0/0x730 [nvme_core]
[   22.673245][    T7]  nvme_identify_ctrl.isra.0+0x124/0x1e0 [nvme_core]
[   22.679784][    T7]  nvme_init_identify+0x90/0x1868 [nvme_core]
[   22.685713][    T7]  nvme_init_ctrl_finish+0x1a8/0xb88 [nvme_core]
[   22.691903][    T7]  nvme_reset_work+0xe5c/0x2aa4 [nvme]
[   22.697219][    T7]  process_one_work+0x7e4/0x19a0
[   22.702005][    T7]  worker_thread+0x334/0xae0
[   22.706442][    T7]  kthread+0x3bc/0x470
[   22.710359][    T7]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[   22.714627][    T7] Code: f941ef81 9101c420 1200080e d343fc06 (38f768c6) 
[   22.721407][    T7] ---[ end trace 1f3c4181ae408676 ]---
[   22.726712][    T7] Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception
[   22.733169][    T7] SMP: stopping secondary CPUs
[   23.765164][    T7] SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs 13,15
[   23.770818][    T7] Kernel Offset: disabled
[   23.774991][    T7] CPU features: 0x00000251,20000846
[   23.780034][    T7] Memory Limit: none
[   23.783794][    T7] ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception ]---

> ---
>  drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c |  2 +-
>  include/linux/swiotlb.h   | 11 +++++++++++
>  kernel/dma/direct.c       |  2 +-
>  kernel/dma/direct.h       |  2 +-
>  kernel/dma/swiotlb.c      |  4 ++++
>  5 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c b/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
> index 0c6ed09f8513..4730a146fa35 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
> @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ static dma_addr_t xen_swiotlb_map_page(struct device *dev, struct page *page,
>  	if (dma_capable(dev, dev_addr, size, true) &&
>  	    !range_straddles_page_boundary(phys, size) &&
>  		!xen_arch_need_swiotlb(dev, phys, dev_addr) &&
> -		swiotlb_force != SWIOTLB_FORCE)
> +		!is_swiotlb_force_bounce(dev))
>  		goto done;
>  
>  	/*
> diff --git a/include/linux/swiotlb.h b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
> index dd1c30a83058..8d8855c77d9a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/swiotlb.h
> +++ b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ extern enum swiotlb_force swiotlb_force;
>   *		unmap calls.
>   * @debugfs:	The dentry to debugfs.
>   * @late_alloc:	%true if allocated using the page allocator
> + * @force_bounce: %true if swiotlb bouncing is forced
>   */
>  struct io_tlb_mem {
>  	phys_addr_t start;
> @@ -94,6 +95,7 @@ struct io_tlb_mem {
>  	spinlock_t lock;
>  	struct dentry *debugfs;
>  	bool late_alloc;
> +	bool force_bounce;
>  	struct io_tlb_slot {
>  		phys_addr_t orig_addr;
>  		size_t alloc_size;
> @@ -109,6 +111,11 @@ static inline bool is_swiotlb_buffer(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t paddr)
>  	return mem && paddr >= mem->start && paddr < mem->end;
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
> +}
> +
>  void __init swiotlb_exit(void);
>  unsigned int swiotlb_max_segment(void);
>  size_t swiotlb_max_mapping_size(struct device *dev);
> @@ -120,6 +127,10 @@ static inline bool is_swiotlb_buffer(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t paddr)
>  {
>  	return false;
>  }
> +static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	return false;
> +}
>  static inline void swiotlb_exit(void)
>  {
>  }
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/direct.c b/kernel/dma/direct.c
> index 7a88c34d0867..a92465b4eb12 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/direct.c
> +++ b/kernel/dma/direct.c
> @@ -496,7 +496,7 @@ size_t dma_direct_max_mapping_size(struct device *dev)
>  {
>  	/* If SWIOTLB is active, use its maximum mapping size */
>  	if (is_swiotlb_active(dev) &&
> -	    (dma_addressing_limited(dev) || swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_FORCE))
> +	    (dma_addressing_limited(dev) || is_swiotlb_force_bounce(dev)))
>  		return swiotlb_max_mapping_size(dev);
>  	return SIZE_MAX;
>  }
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/direct.h b/kernel/dma/direct.h
> index 13e9e7158d94..4632b0f4f72e 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/direct.h
> +++ b/kernel/dma/direct.h
> @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ static inline dma_addr_t dma_direct_map_page(struct device *dev,
>  	phys_addr_t phys = page_to_phys(page) + offset;
>  	dma_addr_t dma_addr = phys_to_dma(dev, phys);
>  
> -	if (unlikely(swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_FORCE))
> +	if (is_swiotlb_force_bounce(dev))
>  		return swiotlb_map(dev, phys, size, dir, attrs);
>  
>  	if (unlikely(!dma_capable(dev, dma_addr, size, true))) {
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> index 8a120f42340b..0d294bbf274c 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> @@ -179,6 +179,10 @@ static void swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem(struct io_tlb_mem *mem, phys_addr_t start,
>  	mem->end = mem->start + bytes;
>  	mem->index = 0;
>  	mem->late_alloc = late_alloc;
> +
> +	if (swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_FORCE)
> +		mem->force_bounce = true;
> +
>  	spin_lock_init(&mem->lock);
>  	for (i = 0; i < mem->nslabs; i++) {
>  		mem->slots[i].list = IO_TLB_SEGSIZE - io_tlb_offset(i);
>
Will Deacon June 23, 2021, 6:37 p.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:39:29PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/18/2021 11:40 PM, Claire Chang wrote:
> > Propagate the swiotlb_force into io_tlb_default_mem->force_bounce and
> > use it to determine whether to bounce the data or not. This will be
> > useful later to allow for different pools.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Claire Chang <tientzu@chromium.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> > Tested-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
> > Tested-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > Acked-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
> 
> Reverting the rest of the series up to this patch fixed a boot crash with NVMe on today's linux-next.

Hmm, so that makes patch 7 the suspicious one, right?

Looking at that one more closely, it looks like swiotlb_find_slots() takes
'alloc_size + offset' as its 'alloc_size' parameter from
swiotlb_tbl_map_single() and initialises 'mem->slots[i].alloc_size' based
on 'alloc_size + offset', which looks like a change in behaviour from the
old code, which didn't include the offset there.

swiotlb_release_slots() then adds the offset back on afaict, so we end up
accounting for it twice and possibly unmap more than we're supposed to?

Will
Qian Cai June 23, 2021, 6:44 p.m. UTC | #3
On 6/23/2021 2:37 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:39:29PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/18/2021 11:40 PM, Claire Chang wrote:
>>> Propagate the swiotlb_force into io_tlb_default_mem->force_bounce and
>>> use it to determine whether to bounce the data or not. This will be
>>> useful later to allow for different pools.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Claire Chang <tientzu@chromium.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>>> Tested-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
>>> Tested-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>>> Acked-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
>>
>> Reverting the rest of the series up to this patch fixed a boot crash with NVMe on today's linux-next.
> 
> Hmm, so that makes patch 7 the suspicious one, right?

Will, no. It is rather patch #6 (this patch). Only the patch from #6 to #12 were reverted to fix the issue. Also, looking at this offset of the crash,

pc : dma_direct_map_sg+0x304/0x8f0
is_swiotlb_force_bounce at /usr/src/linux-next/./include/linux/swiotlb.h:119

is_swiotlb_force_bounce() was the new function introduced in this patch here.

+static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
+{
+	return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
+}

> 
> Looking at that one more closely, it looks like swiotlb_find_slots() takes
> 'alloc_size + offset' as its 'alloc_size' parameter from
> swiotlb_tbl_map_single() and initialises 'mem->slots[i].alloc_size' based
> on 'alloc_size + offset', which looks like a change in behaviour from the
> old code, which didn't include the offset there.
> 
> swiotlb_release_slots() then adds the offset back on afaict, so we end up
> accounting for it twice and possibly unmap more than we're supposed to?
> 
> Will
>
Claire Chang June 24, 2021, 6:05 a.m. UTC | #4
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:43 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 02:44:34PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > is_swiotlb_force_bounce at /usr/src/linux-next/./include/linux/swiotlb.h:119
> >
> > is_swiotlb_force_bounce() was the new function introduced in this patch here.
> >
> > +static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +     return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
> > +}
>
> To me the crash looks like dev->dma_io_tlb_mem is NULL.  Can you
> turn this into :
>
>         return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem && dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
>
> for a quick debug check?

I just realized that dma_io_tlb_mem might be NULL like Christoph
pointed out since swiotlb might not get initialized.
However,  `Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
dfff80000000000e` looks more like the address is garbage rather than
NULL?
I wonder if that's because dev->dma_io_tlb_mem is not assigned
properly (which means device_initialize is not called?).
Robin Murphy June 24, 2021, 11:14 a.m. UTC | #5
On 2021-06-24 07:05, Claire Chang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:43 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 02:44:34PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
>>> is_swiotlb_force_bounce at /usr/src/linux-next/./include/linux/swiotlb.h:119
>>>
>>> is_swiotlb_force_bounce() was the new function introduced in this patch here.
>>>
>>> +static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> +     return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
>>> +}
>>
>> To me the crash looks like dev->dma_io_tlb_mem is NULL.  Can you
>> turn this into :
>>
>>          return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem && dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
>>
>> for a quick debug check?
> 
> I just realized that dma_io_tlb_mem might be NULL like Christoph
> pointed out since swiotlb might not get initialized.
> However,  `Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
> dfff80000000000e` looks more like the address is garbage rather than
> NULL?
> I wonder if that's because dev->dma_io_tlb_mem is not assigned
> properly (which means device_initialize is not called?).

What also looks odd is that the base "address" 0xdfff800000000000 is 
held in a couple of registers, but the offset 0xe looks too small to 
match up to any relevant structure member in that dereference chain :/

Robin.
Will Deacon June 24, 2021, 11:18 a.m. UTC | #6
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:14:39PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2021-06-24 07:05, Claire Chang wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:43 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 02:44:34PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > > is_swiotlb_force_bounce at /usr/src/linux-next/./include/linux/swiotlb.h:119
> > > > 
> > > > is_swiotlb_force_bounce() was the new function introduced in this patch here.
> > > > 
> > > > +static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > +     return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > To me the crash looks like dev->dma_io_tlb_mem is NULL.  Can you
> > > turn this into :
> > > 
> > >          return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem && dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
> > > 
> > > for a quick debug check?
> > 
> > I just realized that dma_io_tlb_mem might be NULL like Christoph
> > pointed out since swiotlb might not get initialized.
> > However,  `Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
> > dfff80000000000e` looks more like the address is garbage rather than
> > NULL?
> > I wonder if that's because dev->dma_io_tlb_mem is not assigned
> > properly (which means device_initialize is not called?).
> 
> What also looks odd is that the base "address" 0xdfff800000000000 is held in
> a couple of registers, but the offset 0xe looks too small to match up to any
> relevant structure member in that dereference chain :/

FWIW, I've managed to trigger a NULL dereference locally when swiotlb hasn't
been initialised but we dereference 'dev->dma_io_tlb_mem', so I think
Christoph's suggestion is needed regardless. But I agree that it won't help
with the issue reported by Qian Cai.

Qian Cai: please can you share your .config and your command line?

Thanks,

Will
Robin Murphy June 24, 2021, 11:34 a.m. UTC | #7
On 2021-06-24 12:18, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:14:39PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 2021-06-24 07:05, Claire Chang wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:43 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 02:44:34PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
>>>>> is_swiotlb_force_bounce at /usr/src/linux-next/./include/linux/swiotlb.h:119
>>>>>
>>>>> is_swiotlb_force_bounce() was the new function introduced in this patch here.
>>>>>
>>>>> +static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +     return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> To me the crash looks like dev->dma_io_tlb_mem is NULL.  Can you
>>>> turn this into :
>>>>
>>>>           return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem && dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
>>>>
>>>> for a quick debug check?
>>>
>>> I just realized that dma_io_tlb_mem might be NULL like Christoph
>>> pointed out since swiotlb might not get initialized.
>>> However,  `Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
>>> dfff80000000000e` looks more like the address is garbage rather than
>>> NULL?
>>> I wonder if that's because dev->dma_io_tlb_mem is not assigned
>>> properly (which means device_initialize is not called?).
>>
>> What also looks odd is that the base "address" 0xdfff800000000000 is held in
>> a couple of registers, but the offset 0xe looks too small to match up to any
>> relevant structure member in that dereference chain :/
> 
> FWIW, I've managed to trigger a NULL dereference locally when swiotlb hasn't
> been initialised but we dereference 'dev->dma_io_tlb_mem', so I think
> Christoph's suggestion is needed regardless.

Ack to that - for SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE, io_tlb_default_mem will remain NULL. 
The massive jump in KernelCI baseline failures as of yesterday looks 
like every arm64 machine with less than 4GB of RAM blowing up...

Robin.

> But I agree that it won't help
> with the issue reported by Qian Cai.
> 
> Qian Cai: please can you share your .config and your command line?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Will
>
Will Deacon June 24, 2021, 11:48 a.m. UTC | #8
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:34:09PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2021-06-24 12:18, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:14:39PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > On 2021-06-24 07:05, Claire Chang wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:43 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 02:44:34PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > > > > is_swiotlb_force_bounce at /usr/src/linux-next/./include/linux/swiotlb.h:119
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > is_swiotlb_force_bounce() was the new function introduced in this patch here.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +     return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > 
> > > > > To me the crash looks like dev->dma_io_tlb_mem is NULL.  Can you
> > > > > turn this into :
> > > > > 
> > > > >           return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem && dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
> > > > > 
> > > > > for a quick debug check?
> > > > 
> > > > I just realized that dma_io_tlb_mem might be NULL like Christoph
> > > > pointed out since swiotlb might not get initialized.
> > > > However,  `Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
> > > > dfff80000000000e` looks more like the address is garbage rather than
> > > > NULL?
> > > > I wonder if that's because dev->dma_io_tlb_mem is not assigned
> > > > properly (which means device_initialize is not called?).
> > > 
> > > What also looks odd is that the base "address" 0xdfff800000000000 is held in
> > > a couple of registers, but the offset 0xe looks too small to match up to any
> > > relevant structure member in that dereference chain :/
> > 
> > FWIW, I've managed to trigger a NULL dereference locally when swiotlb hasn't
> > been initialised but we dereference 'dev->dma_io_tlb_mem', so I think
> > Christoph's suggestion is needed regardless.
> 
> Ack to that - for SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE, io_tlb_default_mem will remain NULL. The
> massive jump in KernelCI baseline failures as of yesterday looks like every
> arm64 machine with less than 4GB of RAM blowing up...

Ok, diff below which attempts to tackle the offset issue I mentioned as
well. Qian Cai -- please can you try with these changes?

Will

--->8

diff --git a/include/linux/swiotlb.h b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
index 175b6c113ed8..39284ff2a6cd 100644
--- a/include/linux/swiotlb.h
+++ b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
@@ -116,7 +116,9 @@ static inline bool is_swiotlb_buffer(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t paddr)
 
 static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
 {
-       return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
+       struct io_tlb_mem *mem = dev->dma_io_tlb_mem;
+
+       return mem && mem->force_bounce;
 }
 
 void __init swiotlb_exit(void);
diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
index 44be8258e27b..0ffbaae9fba2 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
@@ -449,6 +449,7 @@ static int swiotlb_find_slots(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t orig_addr,
                dma_get_min_align_mask(dev) & ~(IO_TLB_SIZE - 1);
        unsigned int nslots = nr_slots(alloc_size), stride;
        unsigned int index, wrap, count = 0, i;
+       unsigned int offset = swiotlb_align_offset(dev, orig_addr);
        unsigned long flags;
 
        BUG_ON(!nslots);
@@ -497,7 +498,7 @@ static int swiotlb_find_slots(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t orig_addr,
        for (i = index; i < index + nslots; i++) {
                mem->slots[i].list = 0;
                mem->slots[i].alloc_size =
-                       alloc_size - ((i - index) << IO_TLB_SHIFT);
+                       alloc_size - (offset + ((i - index) << IO_TLB_SHIFT));
        }
        for (i = index - 1;
             io_tlb_offset(i) != IO_TLB_SEGSIZE - 1 &&
Qian Cai June 24, 2021, 2:10 p.m. UTC | #9
On 6/24/2021 7:48 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Ok, diff below which attempts to tackle the offset issue I mentioned as
> well. Qian Cai -- please can you try with these changes?

This works fine.

> 
> Will
> 
> --->8
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/swiotlb.h b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
> index 175b6c113ed8..39284ff2a6cd 100644
> --- a/include/linux/swiotlb.h
> +++ b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
> @@ -116,7 +116,9 @@ static inline bool is_swiotlb_buffer(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t paddr)
>  
>  static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
>  {
> -       return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
> +       struct io_tlb_mem *mem = dev->dma_io_tlb_mem;
> +
> +       return mem && mem->force_bounce;
>  }
>  
>  void __init swiotlb_exit(void);
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> index 44be8258e27b..0ffbaae9fba2 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> @@ -449,6 +449,7 @@ static int swiotlb_find_slots(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t orig_addr,
>                 dma_get_min_align_mask(dev) & ~(IO_TLB_SIZE - 1);
>         unsigned int nslots = nr_slots(alloc_size), stride;
>         unsigned int index, wrap, count = 0, i;
> +       unsigned int offset = swiotlb_align_offset(dev, orig_addr);
>         unsigned long flags;
>  
>         BUG_ON(!nslots);
> @@ -497,7 +498,7 @@ static int swiotlb_find_slots(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t orig_addr,
>         for (i = index; i < index + nslots; i++) {
>                 mem->slots[i].list = 0;
>                 mem->slots[i].alloc_size =
> -                       alloc_size - ((i - index) << IO_TLB_SHIFT);
> +                       alloc_size - (offset + ((i - index) << IO_TLB_SHIFT));
>         }
>         for (i = index - 1;
>              io_tlb_offset(i) != IO_TLB_SEGSIZE - 1 &&
>
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk June 24, 2021, 3:55 p.m. UTC | #10
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 10:10:51AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/24/2021 7:48 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Ok, diff below which attempts to tackle the offset issue I mentioned as
> > well. Qian Cai -- please can you try with these changes?
> 
> This works fine.

Cool. Let me squash this patch in #6 and rebase the rest of them.

Claire, could you check the devel/for-linus-5.14 say by end of today to
double check that I didn't mess anything up please?

Will,

Thank you for generating the fix! I am going to run it on x86 and Xen
to make sure all is good (granted last time I ran devel/for-linus-5.14
on that setup I didn't see any errors so I need to double check
I didn't do something silly like run a wrong kernel).


> 
> > 
> > Will
> > 
> > --->8
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/swiotlb.h b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
> > index 175b6c113ed8..39284ff2a6cd 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/swiotlb.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
> > @@ -116,7 +116,9 @@ static inline bool is_swiotlb_buffer(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t paddr)
> >  
> >  static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
> >  {
> > -       return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
> > +       struct io_tlb_mem *mem = dev->dma_io_tlb_mem;
> > +
> > +       return mem && mem->force_bounce;
> >  }
> >  
> >  void __init swiotlb_exit(void);
> > diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> > index 44be8258e27b..0ffbaae9fba2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> > +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> > @@ -449,6 +449,7 @@ static int swiotlb_find_slots(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t orig_addr,
> >                 dma_get_min_align_mask(dev) & ~(IO_TLB_SIZE - 1);
> >         unsigned int nslots = nr_slots(alloc_size), stride;
> >         unsigned int index, wrap, count = 0, i;
> > +       unsigned int offset = swiotlb_align_offset(dev, orig_addr);
> >         unsigned long flags;
> >  
> >         BUG_ON(!nslots);
> > @@ -497,7 +498,7 @@ static int swiotlb_find_slots(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t orig_addr,
> >         for (i = index; i < index + nslots; i++) {
> >                 mem->slots[i].list = 0;
> >                 mem->slots[i].alloc_size =
> > -                       alloc_size - ((i - index) << IO_TLB_SHIFT);
> > +                       alloc_size - (offset + ((i - index) << IO_TLB_SHIFT));
> >         }
> >         for (i = index - 1;
> >              io_tlb_offset(i) != IO_TLB_SEGSIZE - 1 &&
> >
Claire Chang June 24, 2021, 3:58 p.m. UTC | #11
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:56 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
<konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 10:10:51AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 6/24/2021 7:48 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Ok, diff below which attempts to tackle the offset issue I mentioned as
> > > well. Qian Cai -- please can you try with these changes?
> >
> > This works fine.
>
> Cool. Let me squash this patch in #6 and rebase the rest of them.
>
> Claire, could you check the devel/for-linus-5.14 say by end of today to
> double check that I didn't mess anything up please?

I just submitted v15 here
(https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/cover/1451322/) in case it's
helpful.
I'll double check of course. Thanks for the efforts!

>
> Will,
>
> Thank you for generating the fix! I am going to run it on x86 and Xen
> to make sure all is good (granted last time I ran devel/for-linus-5.14
> on that setup I didn't see any errors so I need to double check
> I didn't do something silly like run a wrong kernel).
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Will
> > >
> > > --->8
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/swiotlb.h b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
> > > index 175b6c113ed8..39284ff2a6cd 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/swiotlb.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
> > > @@ -116,7 +116,9 @@ static inline bool is_swiotlb_buffer(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t paddr)
> > >
> > >  static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
> > >  {
> > > -       return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
> > > +       struct io_tlb_mem *mem = dev->dma_io_tlb_mem;
> > > +
> > > +       return mem && mem->force_bounce;
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  void __init swiotlb_exit(void);
> > > diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> > > index 44be8258e27b..0ffbaae9fba2 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> > > @@ -449,6 +449,7 @@ static int swiotlb_find_slots(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t orig_addr,
> > >                 dma_get_min_align_mask(dev) & ~(IO_TLB_SIZE - 1);
> > >         unsigned int nslots = nr_slots(alloc_size), stride;
> > >         unsigned int index, wrap, count = 0, i;
> > > +       unsigned int offset = swiotlb_align_offset(dev, orig_addr);
> > >         unsigned long flags;
> > >
> > >         BUG_ON(!nslots);
> > > @@ -497,7 +498,7 @@ static int swiotlb_find_slots(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t orig_addr,
> > >         for (i = index; i < index + nslots; i++) {
> > >                 mem->slots[i].list = 0;
> > >                 mem->slots[i].alloc_size =
> > > -                       alloc_size - ((i - index) << IO_TLB_SHIFT);
> > > +                       alloc_size - (offset + ((i - index) << IO_TLB_SHIFT));
> > >         }
> > >         for (i = index - 1;
> > >              io_tlb_offset(i) != IO_TLB_SEGSIZE - 1 &&
> > >
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk June 24, 2021, 7:20 p.m. UTC | #12
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:58:57PM +0800, Claire Chang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:56 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 10:10:51AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/24/2021 7:48 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > Ok, diff below which attempts to tackle the offset issue I mentioned as
> > > > well. Qian Cai -- please can you try with these changes?
> > >
> > > This works fine.
> >
> > Cool. Let me squash this patch in #6 and rebase the rest of them.
> >
> > Claire, could you check the devel/for-linus-5.14 say by end of today to
> > double check that I didn't mess anything up please?
> 
> I just submitted v15 here
> (https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/cover/1451322/) in case it's
> helpful.

Oh! Nice!
> I'll double check of course. Thanks for the efforts!

I ended up using your patch #6 and #7. Please double-check.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c b/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
index 0c6ed09f8513..4730a146fa35 100644
--- a/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
@@ -369,7 +369,7 @@  static dma_addr_t xen_swiotlb_map_page(struct device *dev, struct page *page,
 	if (dma_capable(dev, dev_addr, size, true) &&
 	    !range_straddles_page_boundary(phys, size) &&
 		!xen_arch_need_swiotlb(dev, phys, dev_addr) &&
-		swiotlb_force != SWIOTLB_FORCE)
+		!is_swiotlb_force_bounce(dev))
 		goto done;
 
 	/*
diff --git a/include/linux/swiotlb.h b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
index dd1c30a83058..8d8855c77d9a 100644
--- a/include/linux/swiotlb.h
+++ b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
@@ -84,6 +84,7 @@  extern enum swiotlb_force swiotlb_force;
  *		unmap calls.
  * @debugfs:	The dentry to debugfs.
  * @late_alloc:	%true if allocated using the page allocator
+ * @force_bounce: %true if swiotlb bouncing is forced
  */
 struct io_tlb_mem {
 	phys_addr_t start;
@@ -94,6 +95,7 @@  struct io_tlb_mem {
 	spinlock_t lock;
 	struct dentry *debugfs;
 	bool late_alloc;
+	bool force_bounce;
 	struct io_tlb_slot {
 		phys_addr_t orig_addr;
 		size_t alloc_size;
@@ -109,6 +111,11 @@  static inline bool is_swiotlb_buffer(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t paddr)
 	return mem && paddr >= mem->start && paddr < mem->end;
 }
 
+static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
+{
+	return dev->dma_io_tlb_mem->force_bounce;
+}
+
 void __init swiotlb_exit(void);
 unsigned int swiotlb_max_segment(void);
 size_t swiotlb_max_mapping_size(struct device *dev);
@@ -120,6 +127,10 @@  static inline bool is_swiotlb_buffer(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t paddr)
 {
 	return false;
 }
+static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
+{
+	return false;
+}
 static inline void swiotlb_exit(void)
 {
 }
diff --git a/kernel/dma/direct.c b/kernel/dma/direct.c
index 7a88c34d0867..a92465b4eb12 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/direct.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/direct.c
@@ -496,7 +496,7 @@  size_t dma_direct_max_mapping_size(struct device *dev)
 {
 	/* If SWIOTLB is active, use its maximum mapping size */
 	if (is_swiotlb_active(dev) &&
-	    (dma_addressing_limited(dev) || swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_FORCE))
+	    (dma_addressing_limited(dev) || is_swiotlb_force_bounce(dev)))
 		return swiotlb_max_mapping_size(dev);
 	return SIZE_MAX;
 }
diff --git a/kernel/dma/direct.h b/kernel/dma/direct.h
index 13e9e7158d94..4632b0f4f72e 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/direct.h
+++ b/kernel/dma/direct.h
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@  static inline dma_addr_t dma_direct_map_page(struct device *dev,
 	phys_addr_t phys = page_to_phys(page) + offset;
 	dma_addr_t dma_addr = phys_to_dma(dev, phys);
 
-	if (unlikely(swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_FORCE))
+	if (is_swiotlb_force_bounce(dev))
 		return swiotlb_map(dev, phys, size, dir, attrs);
 
 	if (unlikely(!dma_capable(dev, dma_addr, size, true))) {
diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
index 8a120f42340b..0d294bbf274c 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
@@ -179,6 +179,10 @@  static void swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem(struct io_tlb_mem *mem, phys_addr_t start,
 	mem->end = mem->start + bytes;
 	mem->index = 0;
 	mem->late_alloc = late_alloc;
+
+	if (swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_FORCE)
+		mem->force_bounce = true;
+
 	spin_lock_init(&mem->lock);
 	for (i = 0; i < mem->nslabs; i++) {
 		mem->slots[i].list = IO_TLB_SEGSIZE - io_tlb_offset(i);