[PATCH] ARM: DMA: Fix kzalloc flags in __iommu_alloc_buffer()

[arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)]

On Tuesday 09 December 2014 11:57:22 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > On Monday 08 December 2014 17:39:27 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >> There doesn't seem to be any valid reason to allocate the pages array
> >> with the same flags as the buffer itself. Doing so can eventually lead
> >> to the following safeguard in mm/slab.c to be hit:
> >>
> >> BUG_ON(flags & GFP_SLAB_BUG_MASK);
> >>
> >> This happens when buffers are allocated with __GFP_DMA32 or
> >> __GFP_HIGHMEM.
> >>
> >> Fix this by allocating the pages array with GFP_KERNEL to follow what is
> >> done elsewhere in this file. Using GFP_KERNEL in __iommu_alloc_buffer()
> >> is safe because atomic allocations are handled by __iommu_alloc_atomic().
> >>
> >
> > I think you need to carry over the GFP_ATOMIC flag if that is set by the
> > caller, but not the GFP_HIGHMEM or GFP_DMA32. Not sure if it's better
> > to mask out flags from the caller mask, or to start with GFP_KERNEL
> > and adding in extra bits.
> 
> I thought the issue of atomicity is already handled by
> __iommu_alloc_buffer's caller (arm_iommu_alloc_attrs):
> 
>     if (!(gfp & __GFP_WAIT))
>         return __iommu_alloc_atomic(dev, size, handle);
>     ....
>     pages = __iommu_alloc_buffer(dev, size, gfp, attrs);
> 
> Isn't the interesting property about GFP_ATOMIC that it does not
> include __GFP_WAIT? I may very well misunderstand the issue, sorry if
> that's the case.

No, I think you are right, I wasn't looking at the whole call chain,
just at your patch, and it looks good to me now.

	Arnd