On 11/28/2025 9:02 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 04:04:28PM +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote:
>> Currently, FastRPC only supports mapping buffers allocated by the
>> kernel. This limits flexibility for applications that allocate memory
>> in userspace using rpcmem or DMABUF and need to share it with the DSP.
>> Add support for mapping and unmapping userspace-allocated buffers to
>> the DSP through SMMU. This includes handling map requests for rpcmem
>> and DMABUF-backed memory and providing corresponding unmap
>> functionality.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ekansh Gupta <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>  drivers/misc/fastrpc.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 85 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c b/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
>> index 9bf76e224852..feba79913763 100644
>> --- a/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
>> @@ -1854,8 +1854,10 @@ static int fastrpc_req_munmap_impl(struct 
>> fastrpc_user *fl, struct fastrpc_buf *
>>  static int fastrpc_req_munmap(struct fastrpc_user *fl, char __user *argp)
>>  {
>>      struct fastrpc_buf *buf = NULL, *iter, *b;
>> +    struct fastrpc_map *map = NULL, *iterm, *m;
>>      struct fastrpc_req_munmap req;
>>      struct device *dev = fl->sctx->dev;
>> +    int err;
>>  
>>      if (copy_from_user(&req, argp, sizeof(req)))
>>              return -EFAULT;
>> @@ -1869,13 +1871,41 @@ static int fastrpc_req_munmap(struct fastrpc_user 
>> *fl, char __user *argp)
>>      }
>>      spin_unlock(&fl->lock);
>>  
>> -    if (!buf) {
>> -            dev_err(dev, "mmap\t\tpt 0x%09llx [len 0x%08llx] not in list\n",
>> +    if (buf) {
>> +            err = fastrpc_req_munmap_impl(fl, buf);
>> +            if (err) {
>> +                    spin_lock(&fl->lock);
>> +                    list_add_tail(&buf->node, &fl->mmaps);
>> +                    spin_unlock(&fl->lock);
>> +            }
>> +            return err;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    spin_lock(&fl->lock);
>> +    list_for_each_entry_safe(iterm, m, &fl->maps, node) {
>> +            if (iterm->raddr == req.vaddrout) {
>> +                    map = iterm;
>> +                    list_del(&iterm->node);
>> +                    break;
>> +            }
>> +    }
>> +    spin_unlock(&fl->lock);
>> +    if (!map) {
>> +            dev_dbg(dev, "buffer/map not found addr 0x%09llx, len 
>> 0x%08llx\n",
>>                      req.vaddrout, req.size);
> Never print out kernel pointers "raw" like this, use the real %p tags
> instead.  Odd that the current code does this, that is not good and is
> probably a "information leak" somehow.
>
> Can you fix that up first so it can be backported properly?
Thanks for pointing this out, I'll fix this before refactoring.
>
>>              return -EINVAL;
>>      }
>>  
>> -    return fastrpc_req_munmap_impl(fl, buf);
>> +    err = fastrpc_req_munmap_dsp(fl, map->raddr, map->size);
>> +    if (err) {
>> +            dev_dbg(dev, "unmmap\tpt fd = %d, 0x%09llx error\n",  map->fd, 
>> map->raddr);
> Same here.  Also, no need for a \t in a kernel log message.
Ack.
>
>> +            spin_lock(&fl->lock);
>> +            list_add_tail(&map->node, &fl->maps);
>> +            spin_unlock(&fl->lock);
>> +    } else {
>> +            fastrpc_map_put(map);
>> +    }
>> +    return err;
>>  }
>>  
>>  static int fastrpc_req_map_dsp(struct fastrpc_user *fl, u64 phys,
>> @@ -1989,25 +2019,69 @@ static int fastrpc_req_buf_alloc(struct fastrpc_user 
>> *fl,
>>      return err;
>>  }
>>  
>> -static int fastrpc_req_mmap(struct fastrpc_user *fl, char __user *argp)
>> +static int fastrpc_req_map_create(struct fastrpc_user *fl,
>> +                              struct fastrpc_req_mmap req,
>> +                              char __user *argp)
>>  {
>> -    struct fastrpc_req_mmap req;
>> +    struct fastrpc_map *map = NULL;
>> +    struct device *dev = fl->sctx->dev;
>> +    u64 raddr = 0;
>>      int err;
>>  
>> -    if (copy_from_user(&req, argp, sizeof(req)))
>> -            return -EFAULT;
>> +    err = fastrpc_map_create(fl, req.fd, req.size, 0, &map);
>> +    if (err) {
>> +            dev_err(dev, "failed to map buffer, fd = %d\n", req.fd);
>> +            return err;
>> +    }
>>  
>> -    if (req.flags != ADSP_MMAP_ADD_PAGES && req.flags != 
>> ADSP_MMAP_REMOTE_HEAP_ADDR) {
>> -            dev_err(fl->sctx->dev, "flag not supported 0x%x\n", req.flags);
>> +    err = fastrpc_req_map_dsp(fl, map->phys, map->size, req.flags,
>> +                              req.vaddrin, &raddr);
>> +    if (err)
>> +            goto err_invoke;
>>  
>> -            return -EINVAL;
>> +    /* update the buffer to be able to deallocate the memory on the DSP */
>> +    map->raddr = (u64)raddr;
>> +
>> +    /* let the client know the address to use */
>> +    req.vaddrout = raddr;
>> +    dev_dbg(dev, "mmap\t\tpt 0x%09llx OK [len 0x%08llx]\n",
>> +            map->raddr, map->size);
>> +
>> +    if (copy_to_user((void __user *)argp, &req, sizeof(req))) {
> argp is already a user pointer, no need to cast it again, right?
yes, right.
>
>> +            err = -EFAULT;
>> +            goto err_copy;
>>      }
>>  
>> -    err = fastrpc_req_buf_alloc(fl, req, argp);
>> +    return 0;
>> +err_copy:
>> +    fastrpc_req_munmap_dsp(fl, map->raddr, map->size);
>> +err_invoke:
>> +    fastrpc_map_put(map);
>>  
>>      return err;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int fastrpc_req_mmap(struct fastrpc_user *fl, char __user *argp)
>> +{
>> +    struct fastrpc_req_mmap req;
>> +    int err;
>> +
>> +    if (copy_from_user(&req, argp, sizeof(req)))
>> +            return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> +    if ((req.flags == ADSP_MMAP_ADD_PAGES ||
>> +         req.flags == ADSP_MMAP_REMOTE_HEAP_ADDR)) {
>> +            err = fastrpc_req_buf_alloc(fl, req, argp);
>> +            if (err)
>> +                    return err;
>> +    } else {
>> +            err = fastrpc_req_map_create(fl, req, argp);
> You changed the logic here from what used to happen if req.flags was not
> set to those two values.  Are you _sure_ you mean to do that?  If so,
> how does userspace know?  Why don't you have a new flag for the new
> type of memory you want to map?
The userspace follows the same logic for all the flags other than the defined 
flags
where a buffer is allocated using DMA-BUF and then mapped onto DSP using this
IOCTL call.

Do you see any concerns with this?

Thanks,
Ekansh
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Reply via email to