Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-contiguous: do not overwrite align in dma_alloc_contiguous()

[Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:28:49AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 04:39:58PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > The dma_alloc_contiguous() limits align at CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT for
> > cma_alloc() however it does not restore it for the fallback routine.
> > This will result in a size mismatch between the allocation and free
> > when running in the fallback routines, if the align is larger than
> > CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT.
> > 
> > This patch adds a cma_align to take care of cma_alloc() and prevent
> > the align from being overwritten.
> > 
> > Fixes: fdaeec198ada ("dma-contiguous: add dma_{alloc,free}_contiguous() helpers")
> > Reported-by: Dafna Hirschfeld <dafna.hirschfeld@collabora.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/dma/contiguous.c | 9 +++++----
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/dma/contiguous.c b/kernel/dma/contiguous.c
> > index bfc0c17f2a3d..fa8cd0f0512e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/dma/contiguous.c
> > +++ b/kernel/dma/contiguous.c
> > @@ -233,6 +233,7 @@ struct page *dma_alloc_contiguous(struct device *dev, size_t size, gfp_t gfp)
> >  	int node = dev ? dev_to_node(dev) : NUMA_NO_NODE;
> >  	size_t count = PAGE_ALIGN(size) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >  	size_t align = get_order(PAGE_ALIGN(size));
> > +	size_t cma_align = CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT;
> >  	struct page *page = NULL;
> >  	struct cma *cma = NULL;
> >  
> > @@ -241,11 +242,11 @@ struct page *dma_alloc_contiguous(struct device *dev, size_t size, gfp_t gfp)
> >  	else if (count > 1)
> >  		cma = dma_contiguous_default_area;
> >  
> > +	cma_align = min_t(size_t, align, cma_align);
> > +
> >  	/* CMA can be used only in the context which permits sleeping */
> > -	if (cma && gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp)) {
> > -		align = min_t(size_t, align, CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT);
> > -		page = cma_alloc(cma, count, align, gfp & __GFP_NOWARN);
> > -	}
> > +	if (cma && gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp))
> > +		page = cma_alloc(cma, count, cma_align, gfp & __GFP_NOWARN);
> 
> Shouldn't cma_align be confined to the block guarded by
> "if (cma && gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp))" so that we can optimize it
> away for configurations that do not support CMA?

Had my local 1st version doing just like that but then wanted to
simplify the statement within that if-condition so redid in this
way. Will change it back as you suggested. Thanks