Skip to content

Commit 6c75dc9

Browse files
Alex Elderkuba-moo
authored andcommitted
net: ipa: compute DMA pool size properly
In gsi_trans_pool_init_dma(), the total size of a pool of memory used for DMA transactions is calculated. However the calculation is done incorrectly. For 4KB pages, this total size is currently always more than one page, and as a result, the calculation produces a positive (though incorrect) total size. The code still works in this case; we just end up with fewer DMA pool entries than we intended. Bjorn Andersson tested booting a kernel with 16KB pages, and hit a null pointer derereference in sg_alloc_append_table_from_pages(), descending from gsi_trans_pool_init_dma(). The cause of this was that a 16KB total size was going to be allocated, and with 16KB pages the order of that allocation is 0. The total_size calculation yielded 0, which eventually led to the crash. Correcting the total_size calculation fixes the problem. Reported-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@quicinc.com> Tested-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@quicinc.com> Fixes: 9dd441e ("soc: qcom: ipa: GSI transactions") Reviewed-by: Mark Bloch <mbloch@nvidia.com> Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230328162751.2861791-1-elder@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
1 parent 5f70bcb commit 6c75dc9

1 file changed

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion

File tree

drivers/net/ipa/gsi_trans.c

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ int gsi_trans_pool_init_dma(struct device *dev, struct gsi_trans_pool *pool,
156156
* gsi_trans_pool_exit_dma() can assume the total allocated
157157
* size is exactly (count * size).
158158
*/
159-
total_size = get_order(total_size) << PAGE_SHIFT;
159+
total_size = PAGE_SIZE << get_order(total_size);
160160

161161
virt = dma_alloc_coherent(dev, total_size, &addr, GFP_KERNEL);
162162
if (!virt)

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)