Re: [PATCH] kvmalloc: always use vmalloc if CONFIG_DEBUG_VM

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 08:20:23AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:12:38PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > Unfortunatelly, some kernel code has bugs - it uses kvmalloc and then
> > > uses DMA-API on the returned memory or frees it with kfree. Such bugs were
> > > found in the virtio-net driver, dm-integrity or RHEL7 powerpc-specific
> > > code.
> > 
> > Maybe it's time to have the SG code handle vmalloced pages?  This is
> > becoming more and more common with vmapped stacks (and some of our
> > workarounds are hideous -- allocate 4 bytes with kmalloc because we can't
> > DMA onto the stack any more?).  We already have a few places which do
> > handle sgs of vmalloced addresses, such as the nx crypto driver:
> > 
> >         if (is_vmalloc_addr(start_addr))
> >                 sg_addr = page_to_phys(vmalloc_to_page(start_addr))
> >                           + offset_in_page(sg_addr);
> >         else
> >                 sg_addr = __pa(sg_addr);
> > 
> > and videobuf:
> > 
> >                 pg = vmalloc_to_page(virt);
> >                 if (NULL == pg)
> >                         goto err;
> >                 BUG_ON(page_to_pfn(pg) >= (1 << (32 - PAGE_SHIFT)));
> >                 sg_set_page(&sglist[i], pg, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
> > 
> > Yes, there's the potential that we have to produce two SG entries for a
> > virtually contiguous region if it crosses a page boundary, and our APIs
> > aren't set up right to make it happen.  But this is something we should
> > consider fixing ... otherwise we'll end up with dozens of driver hacks.
> > The videobuf implementation was already copy-and-pasted into the saa7146
> > driver, for example.
> 
> What if the device requires physically contiguous area and the vmalloc 
> area crosses a page? Will you use a bounce buffer? Where do you allocate 
> the bounce buffer from? What if you run out of bounce buffers?
> 
> Mikulkas

I agree with Matthew here.

4 byte variables are typically size aligned so won't cross a boundary.

That's enough for virtio at least. People using structs can force
alignment.

We could wrap access in a macro (sizeof(x) >= alignof(x)) to help
guarantee that.

-- 
MST