From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com (Laurent Pinchart)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:30:53 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] arm: dma-mapping: Fix mapping size value
In-Reply-To: <53577F84.1080101@samsung.com>
References: <1398062847-5770-1-git-send-email-ritesh.harjani@gmail.com>
 <20140422085307.GB5747@arm.com> <53577F84.1080101@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <4662711.Ubz0jaKMvq@avalon>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Marek,

On Wednesday 23 April 2014 10:53:24 Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> On 2014-04-22 10:53, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:47:27AM +0100, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > > 68efd7d2fb("arm: dma-mapping: remove order parameter from
> > > arm_iommu_create_mapping()") is causing kernel panic
> > > because it wrongly sets the value of mapping->size:
> > > 
> > > Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual
> > > address 000000a0
> > > pgd = e7a84000
> > > [000000a0] *pgd=00000000
> > > ...
> > > PC is at bitmap_clear+0x48/0xd0
> > > LR is at __iommu_remove_mapping+0x130/0x164
> > > 
> > > Fix it by correcting mapping->size value.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.harjani@gmail.com>
> > > Acked-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
> > > index f62aa06..6b00be1 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
> > > @@ -1963,8 +1963,8 @@ arm_iommu_create_mapping(struct bus_type *bus,
> > > dma_addr_t base, size_t size)> > 
> > >  	mapping->nr_bitmaps = 1;
> > >  	mapping->extensions = extensions;
> > >  	mapping->base = base;
> > > 
> > > -	mapping->size = bitmap_size << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > 
> > >  	mapping->bits = BITS_PER_BYTE * bitmap_size;
> > > 
> > > +	mapping->size = mapping->bits << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > 
> > Ok, but given that mapping->size is derived from mapping->bits, do we
> > really need both of these fields in struct dma_iommu_mapping?
> 
> You are right. I didn't notice this while I was refactoring the code.
> Ritesh, could you update your patch and simply replace all references of
> mapping->size with (mapping->bits << PAGE_SHIFT), probably with some
> temporary variable to make the code easier to understand? I've didn't apply
> your patch yet.

As this patch fixes a v3.15 regression, shouldn't it be applied as-is and 
ASAP, with the cleanup that removes mapping->size coming in a later, less 
urgent patch ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart