On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 8:06 AM Will Deacon will@kernel.org wrote:
On Sat, May 02, 2026 at 12:40:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
I'm not sure exactly who to report this bug too. Probably the mm devs?
[Adding John and TJ, in case they are interested / able to help]
Will
(original report follows)
drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c:499 system_heap_allocate() warn: passing positive error code 's32min-(-1),1' to 'ERR_PTR'drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c 459 if (cc_shared) { 460 for_each_sgtable_sg(table, sg, i) { 461 ret = system_heap_set_page_decrypted(sg_page(sg)); 462 if (ret) 463 goto free_pages;
It kind of looks like system_heap_set_page_decrypted() can return 1.
464 } 465 } 466 467 /* create the dmabuf */ 468 exp_info.exp_name = dma_heap_get_name(heap); 469 exp_info.ops = &system_heap_buf_ops; 470 exp_info.size = buffer->len; 471 exp_info.flags = fd_flags; 472 exp_info.priv = buffer; 473 dmabuf = dma_buf_export(&exp_info); 474 if (IS_ERR(dmabuf)) { 475 ret = PTR_ERR(dmabuf); 476 goto free_pages; 477 } 478 return dmabuf; 479 480 free_pages: 481 for_each_sgtable_sg(table, sg, i) { 482 struct page *p = sg_page(sg); 483 484 /* 485 * Intentionally leak pages that cannot be re-encrypted 486 * to prevent shared memory from being reused. 487 */ 488 if (buffer->cc_shared && 489 system_heap_set_page_encrypted(p)) 490 continue; 491 __free_pages(p, compound_order(p)); 492 } 493 sg_free_table(table); 494 free_buffer: 495 list_for_each_entry_safe(page, tmp_page, &pages, lru) 496 __free_pages(page, compound_order(page)); 497 kfree(buffer); 498--> 499 return ERR_PTR(ret); 500 }
The problem is that add_to_pagemap() returns PM_END_OF_BUFFER (1) which is used by pagemap_read() and nowhere else. The call tree is:
system_heap_allocate() system_heap_set_page_decrypted() set_memory_decrypted() realm_set_memory_decrypted() __set_memory_enc_dec() __change_memory_common() update_range_prot() walk_kernel_page_table_range_lockless() walk_pgd_range() pagemap_pte_hole() add_to_pagemap()
This code seems sort of old and I guess no one has reported the bug so maybe it's a false positive, but it feels like it's asking for problems to return the PM_END_OF_BUFFER. There aren't any comments on any of those functions above explaining what return values are expected.
So, do we just need the system_heap_set_page_decrypted() to have a if (ret > 0) special case on the return check from set_memory_decrypted()?
Or should this get fixed at a deeper level?
thanks -john