Linaro-mm-sig

linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org

50 participants
3508 discussions

Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 7/9] drm: update global mutex lock in the ioctl handler

by Daniel Vetter

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:53 PM Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 18/8/21 7:02 pm, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 03:38:22PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote: > >> In a future patch, a read lock on drm_device.master_rwsem is > >> held in the ioctl handler before the check for ioctl > >> permissions. However, this produces the following lockdep splat: > >> > >> ====================================================== > >> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > >> 5.14.0-rc6-CI-Patchwork_20831+ #1 Tainted: G U > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> kms_lease/1752 is trying to acquire lock: > >> ffffffff827bad88 (drm_global_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: drm_open+0x64/0x280 > >> > >> but task is already holding lock: > >> ffff88812e350108 (&dev->master_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: > >> drm_ioctl_kernel+0xfb/0x1a0 > >> > >> which lock already depends on the new lock. > >> > >> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > >> > >> -> #2 (&dev->master_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}: > >> lock_acquire+0xd3/0x310 > >> down_read+0x3b/0x140 > >> drm_master_internal_acquire+0x1d/0x60 > >> drm_client_modeset_commit+0x10/0x40 > >> __drm_fb_helper_restore_fbdev_mode_unlocked+0x88/0xb0 > >> drm_fb_helper_set_par+0x34/0x40 > >> intel_fbdev_set_par+0x11/0x40 [i915] > >> fbcon_init+0x270/0x4f0 > >> visual_init+0xc6/0x130 > >> do_bind_con_driver+0x1de/0x2c0 > >> do_take_over_console+0x10e/0x180 > >> do_fbcon_takeover+0x53/0xb0 > >> register_framebuffer+0x22d/0x310 > >> __drm_fb_helper_initial_config_and_unlock+0x36c/0x540 > >> intel_fbdev_initial_config+0xf/0x20 [i915] > >> async_run_entry_fn+0x28/0x130 > >> process_one_work+0x26d/0x5c0 > >> worker_thread+0x37/0x390 > >> kthread+0x13b/0x170 > >> ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 > >> > >> -> #1 (&helper->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: > >> lock_acquire+0xd3/0x310 > >> __mutex_lock+0xa8/0x930 > >> __drm_fb_helper_restore_fbdev_mode_unlocked+0x44/0xb0 > >> intel_fbdev_restore_mode+0x2b/0x50 [i915] > >> drm_lastclose+0x27/0x50 > >> drm_release_noglobal+0x42/0x60 > >> __fput+0x9e/0x250 > >> task_work_run+0x6b/0xb0 > >> exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1c5/0x1d0 > >> syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x19/0x50 > >> do_syscall_64+0x46/0xb0 > >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > >> > >> -> #0 (drm_global_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: > >> validate_chain+0xb39/0x1e70 > >> __lock_acquire+0x5a1/0xb70 > >> lock_acquire+0xd3/0x310 > >> __mutex_lock+0xa8/0x930 > >> drm_open+0x64/0x280 > >> drm_stub_open+0x9f/0x100 > >> chrdev_open+0x9f/0x1d0 > >> do_dentry_open+0x14a/0x3a0 > >> dentry_open+0x53/0x70 > >> drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl+0x3cb/0x970 > >> drm_ioctl_kernel+0xc9/0x1a0 > >> drm_ioctl+0x201/0x3d0 > >> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x6a/0xa0 > >> do_syscall_64+0x37/0xb0 > >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > >> > >> other info that might help us debug this: > >> Chain exists of: > >> drm_global_mutex --> &helper->lock --> &dev->master_rwsem > >> Possible unsafe locking scenario: > >> CPU0 CPU1 > >> ---- ---- > >> lock(&dev->master_rwsem); > >> lock(&helper->lock); > >> lock(&dev->master_rwsem); > >> lock(drm_global_mutex); > >> > >> *** DEADLOCK *** > >> > >> The lock hierarchy inversion happens because we grab the > >> drm_global_mutex while already holding on to master_rwsem. To avoid > >> this, we do some prep work to grab the drm_global_mutex before > >> checking for ioctl permissions. > >> > >> At the same time, we update the check for the global mutex to use the > >> drm_dev_needs_global_mutex helper function. > > > > This is intentional, essentially we force all non-legacy drivers to have > > unlocked ioctl (otherwise everyone forgets to set that flag). > > > > For non-legacy drivers the global lock only ensures ordering between > > drm_open and lastclose (I think at least), and between > > drm_dev_register/unregister and the backwards ->load/unload callbacks > > (which are called in the wrong place, but we cannot fix that for legacy > > drivers). > > > > ->load/unload should be completely unused (maybe radeon still uses it), > > and ->lastclose is also on the decline. > > > > Ah ok got it, I'll change the check back to > drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_LEGACY) then. > > > Maybe we should update the comment of drm_global_mutex to explain what it > > protects and why. > > > > The comments in drm_dev_needs_global_mutex make sense I think, I just > didn't read the code closely enough. > > > I'm also confused how this patch connects to the splat, since for i915 we > > Right, my bad, this is a separate instance of circular locking. I was > too hasty when I saw that for legacy drivers we might grab master_rwsem > then drm_global_mutex in the ioctl handler. > > > shouldn't be taking the drm_global_lock here at all. The problem seems to > > be the drm_open_helper when we create a new lease, which is an entirely > > different can of worms. > > > > I'm honestly not sure how to best do that, but we should be able to create > > a file and then call drm_open_helper directly, or well a version of that > > which never takes the drm_global_mutex. Because that is not needed for > > nested drm_file opening: > > - legacy drivers never go down this path because leases are only supported > > with modesetting, and modesetting is only supported for non-legacy > > drivers > > - the races against dev->open_count due to last_close or ->load callbacks > > don't matter, because for the entire ioctl we already have an open > > drm_file and that wont disappear. > > > > So this should work, but I'm not entirely sure how to make it work. > > -Daniel > > > > One idea that comes to mind is to change the outcome of > drm_dev_needs_global_mutex while we're in the ioctl, but that requires > more locking which sounds like a bad idea. > > Another idea, which is quite messy, but just for thoughts, uses the idea > of pushing the master_rwsem read lock down: Yeah I think that's cleaner, and I think that also should work a lot better for the other ioctls: - We don't have a need to flush readers anymore since we'll just take the rwsem in write mode - There's much less inversions, and maybe we could even get rid of the spinlock since at that point all readers should at least have the rwsem read-locked. > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > index 7f523e1c5650..5d05e744b728 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > @@ -712,7 +712,7 @@ static const struct drm_ioctl_desc drm_ioctls[] = { > DRM_RENDER_ALLOW), > DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_CRTC_GET_SEQUENCE, drm_crtc_get_sequence_ioctl, 0), > DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_CRTC_QUEUE_SEQUENCE, drm_crtc_queue_sequence_ioctl, 0), > - DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_CREATE_LEASE, drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl, DRM_MASTER), > + DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_CREATE_LEASE, drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl, 0), > DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_LIST_LESSEES, drm_mode_list_lessees_ioctl, DRM_MASTER), > DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_GET_LEASE, drm_mode_get_lease_ioctl, DRM_MASTER), > DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_REVOKE_LEASE, drm_mode_revoke_lease_ioctl, DRM_MASTER), > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lease.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lease.c > index 983701198ffd..a25bc69522b4 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lease.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lease.c > @@ -500,6 +500,19 @@ int drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, > return -EINVAL; > } > > + /* Clone the lessor file to create a new file for us */ > + DRM_DEBUG_LEASE("Allocating lease file\n"); > + lessee_file = file_clone_open(lessor_file); > + if (IS_ERR(lessee_file)) > + return PTR_ERR(lessee_file); > + > + down_read(&dev->master_rwsem); > + > + if (!drm_is_current_master(lessor_priv)) { > + ret = -EACCES; > + goto out_file; > + } > + > lessor = drm_file_get_master(lessor_priv); > /* Do not allow sub-leases */ > if (lessor->lessor) { > @@ -547,14 +560,6 @@ int drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, > goto out_leases; > } > > - /* Clone the lessor file to create a new file for us */ > - DRM_DEBUG_LEASE("Allocating lease file\n"); > - lessee_file = file_clone_open(lessor_file); > - if (IS_ERR(lessee_file)) { > - ret = PTR_ERR(lessee_file); > - goto out_lessee; > - } > - > lessee_priv = lessee_file->private_data; > /* Change the file to a master one */ > drm_master_put(&lessee_priv->master); > @@ -571,17 +576,19 @@ int drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, > fd_install(fd, lessee_file); > > drm_master_put(&lessor); > + up_read(&dev->master_rwsem); > DRM_DEBUG_LEASE("drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl succeeded\n"); > return 0; > > -out_lessee: > - drm_master_put(&lessee); > - > out_leases: > put_unused_fd(fd); > > out_lessor: > drm_master_put(&lessor); > + > +out_file: > + up_read(&dev->master_rwsem); > + fput(lessee_file); > DRM_DEBUG_LEASE("drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl failed: %d\n", ret); > return ret; > } > > > Something like this would also address the other deadlock we'd hit in > drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl(): > > drm_ioctl_kernel(): > down_read(&master_rwsem); <--- down_read() > drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl(): > drm_lease_create(): > file_clone_open(): > ... > drm_open(): > drm_open_helper(): > drm_master_open(): > down_write(&master_rwsem); <--- down_write() > > Overall, I think the suggestion to push master_rwsem write locks down > into ioctls would solve the nesting problem for those ioctls. Yup, my gut feeling agress. And the above is a nice solution without having to dig out all the code for creating a file directly (it's doable I think at least, we do it for dma-buf). > Although I'm still a little concerned that, just like here, there might > be deeply embedded nested locking, so locking becomes prone to breaking. > It does smell a bit to me. Yeah, that's pretty much the bane of locking cleanup/rework. You have to do it to figure out what goes boom :-/ Even with the most careful audit there's surprises left. -Daniel > >> Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx(a)gmail.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c | 18 +++++++++--------- > >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > >> index 880fc565d599..2cb57378a787 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > >> @@ -779,19 +779,19 @@ long drm_ioctl_kernel(struct file *file, drm_ioctl_t *func, void *kdata, > >> if (drm_dev_is_unplugged(dev)) > >> return -ENODEV; > >> > >> + /* Enforce sane locking for modern driver ioctls. */ > >> + if (unlikely(drm_dev_needs_global_mutex(dev)) && !(flags & DRM_UNLOCKED)) > >> + mutex_lock(&drm_global_mutex); > >> + > >> retcode = drm_ioctl_permit(flags, file_priv); > >> if (unlikely(retcode)) > >> - return retcode; > >> + goto out; > >> > >> - /* Enforce sane locking for modern driver ioctls. */ > >> - if (likely(!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_LEGACY)) || > >> - (flags & DRM_UNLOCKED)) > >> - retcode = func(dev, kdata, file_priv); > >> - else { > >> - mutex_lock(&drm_global_mutex); > >> - retcode = func(dev, kdata, file_priv); > >> + retcode = func(dev, kdata, file_priv); > >> + > >> +out: > >> + if (unlikely(drm_dev_needs_global_mutex(dev)) && !(flags & DRM_UNLOCKED)) > >> mutex_unlock(&drm_global_mutex); > >> - } > >> return retcode; > >> } > >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_ioctl_kernel); > >> -- > >> 2.25.1 > >> > > > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch

4 years, 6 months

Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH v3 8/9] kernel: export task_work_add

by Christoph Hellwig

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 03:38:23PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote: > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(task_work_add); EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL for this kinds of functionality, please.

4 years, 6 months

Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 4/9] drm: fix potential null ptr dereferences in drm_{auth, ioctl}

by Daniel Vetter

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 5:37 PM Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 18/8/21 6:11 pm, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 03:38:19PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote: > >> There are three areas where we dereference struct drm_master without > >> checking if the pointer is non-NULL. > >> > >> 1. drm_getmagic is called from the ioctl_handler. Since > >> DRM_IOCTL_GET_MAGIC has no ioctl flags, drm_getmagic is run without > >> any check that drm_file.master has been set. > >> > >> 2. Similarly, drm_getunique is called from the ioctl_handler, but > >> DRM_IOCTL_GET_UNIQUE has no ioctl flags. So there is no guarantee that > >> drm_file.master has been set. > > > > I think the above two are impossible, due to the refcounting rules for > > struct file. > > > > Right, will drop those two parts from the patch. > > >> 3. drm_master_release can also be called without having a > >> drm_file.master set. Here is one error path: > >> drm_open(): > >> drm_open_helper(): > >> drm_master_open(): > >> drm_new_set_master(); <--- returns -ENOMEM, > >> drm_file.master not set > >> drm_file_free(): > >> drm_master_release(); <--- NULL ptr dereference > >> (file_priv->master->magic_map) > >> > >> Fix these by checking if the master pointers are NULL before use. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx(a)gmail.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c | 5 +++++ > >> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c > >> index f9267b21556e..b7230604496b 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c > >> @@ -95,11 +95,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_is_current_master); > >> int drm_getmagic(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *file_priv) > >> { > >> struct drm_auth *auth = data; > >> + struct drm_master *master; > >> int ret = 0; > >> > >> mutex_lock(&dev->master_mutex); > >> + master = file_priv->master; > >> + if (!master) { > >> + mutex_unlock(&dev->master_mutex); > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + } > >> + > >> if (!file_priv->magic) { > >> - ret = idr_alloc(&file_priv->master->magic_map, file_priv, > >> + ret = idr_alloc(&master->magic_map, file_priv, > >> 1, 0, GFP_KERNEL); > >> if (ret >= 0) > >> file_priv->magic = ret; > >> @@ -355,8 +362,12 @@ void drm_master_release(struct drm_file *file_priv) > >> > >> mutex_lock(&dev->master_mutex); > >> master = file_priv->master; > >> + > >> + if (!master) > >> + goto unlock; > > > > This is a bit convoluted, since we're in the single-threaded release path > > we don't need any locking for file_priv related things. Therefore we can > > pull the master check out and just directly return. > > > > But since it's a bit surprising maybe a comment that this can happen when > > drm_master_open in drm_open_helper fails? > > > > Sounds good. This can actually also happen in the failure path of > mock_drm_getfile if anon_inode_getfile fails. I'll leave a short note > about both of them. > > > Another option, and maybe cleaner, would be to move the drm_master_release > > from drm_file_free into drm_close_helper. That would be fully symmetrical > > and should also fix the bug here? > > -Daniel > > > Hmmm maybe the first option to move the check out of the lock might be > better. If I'm not wrong, we would otherwise also need to move > drm_master_release into drm_client_close. Do we have to? If I haven't missed anything, the drm_client stuff only calls drm_file_alloc and doesn't set up a master. So this should work? -Daniel > > > > >> + > >> if (file_priv->magic) > >> - idr_remove(&file_priv->master->magic_map, file_priv->magic); > >> + idr_remove(&master->magic_map, file_priv->magic); > >> > >> if (!drm_is_current_master_locked(file_priv)) > >> goto out; > >> @@ -379,6 +390,7 @@ void drm_master_release(struct drm_file *file_priv) > >> drm_master_put(&file_priv->master); > >> spin_unlock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); > >> } > >> +unlock: > >> mutex_unlock(&dev->master_mutex); > >> } > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > >> index 26f3a9ede8fe..4d029d3061d9 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > >> @@ -121,6 +121,11 @@ int drm_getunique(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > >> > >> mutex_lock(&dev->master_mutex); > >> master = file_priv->master; > >> + if (!master) { > >> + mutex_unlock(&dev->master_mutex); > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + } > >> + > >> if (u->unique_len >= master->unique_len) { > >> if (copy_to_user(u->unique, master->unique, master->unique_len)) { > >> mutex_unlock(&dev->master_mutex); > >> -- > >> 2.25.1 > >> > > > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch

4 years, 6 months

Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH] drm/prime: fix a potential double put (release) bug

by Christian König

Am 18.08.21 um 15:02 schrieb Wentao_Liang: > In line 317 (#1), drm_gem_prime_import() is called, it will call > drm_gem_prime_import_dev(). At the end of the function > drm_gem_prime_import_dev() (line 956, #2), "dma_buf_put(dma_buf);" puts > dma_buf->file and may cause it to be released. However, after > drm_gem_prime_import() returning, the dma_buf may be put again by the > same put function in lines 342, 351 and 358 (#3, #4, #5). Putting the > dma_buf improperly more than once can lead to an incorrect dma_buf- >> file put. > We believe that the put of the dma_buf in the function > drm_gem_prime_import() is unnecessary (#2). We can fix the above bug by > removing the redundant "dma_buf_put(dma_buf);" in line 956. Guys I'm getting tired of NAKing those incorrect reference count analysis. The dma_buf_put() in the error handling of drm_gem_prime_import_dev() function is balanced with the get_dma_buf() in the same function directly above. This is for the creating a GEM object for a DMA-buf imported from other device use case and certainly correct. The various dma_buf_put() in drm_gem_prime_fd_to_handle() is balanced with the dma_buf_get(prime_fd) at the beginning of the function. This is for extracting the DMA-buf from the file descriptor and keeping a reference to it while we are busy importing it (e.g. to prevent a race when somebody changes the fd at the same time). As far as I can see this is correct as well. Regards, Christian. > > 314 if (dev->driver->gem_prime_import) > 315 obj = dev->driver->gem_prime_import(dev, dma_buf); > 316 else > 317 obj = drm_gem_prime_import(dev, dma_buf); > //#1 call to drm_gem_prime_import > // ->drm_gem_prime_import_dev > // ->dma_buf_put > ... > > 336 ret = drm_prime_add_buf_handle(&file_priv->prime, > 337 dma_buf, *handle); > > ... > > 342 dma_buf_put(dma_buf); //#3 put again > 343 > 344 return 0; > 345 > 346 fail: > > 351 dma_buf_put(dma_buf); //#4 put again > 352 return ret; > > 356 out_put: > 357 mutex_unlock(&file_priv->prime.lock); > 358 dma_buf_put(dma_buf); //#5 put again > 359 return ret; > 360 } > > 905 struct drm_gem_object *drm_gem_prime_import_dev > (struct drm_device *dev, > 906 struct dma_buf *dma_buf, > 907 struct device *attach_dev) > 908 { > > ... > > 952 fail_unmap: > 953 dma_buf_unmap_attachment(attach, sgt, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); > 954 fail_detach: > 955 dma_buf_detach(dma_buf, attach); > 956 dma_buf_put(dma_buf); //#2 the first put of dma_buf > // (unnecessary) > 957 > 958 return ERR_PTR(ret); > 959 } > > Signed-off-by: Wentao_Liang <Wentao_Liang_g(a)163.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c > index 2a54f86856af..cef03ad0d5cd 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c > @@ -953,7 +953,6 @@ struct drm_gem_object *drm_gem_prime_import_dev(struct drm_device *dev, > dma_buf_unmap_attachment(attach, sgt, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); > fail_detach: > dma_buf_detach(dma_buf, attach); > - dma_buf_put(dma_buf); > > return ERR_PTR(ret); > }

4 years, 6 months

Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH] dma-buf: return -EINVAL if dmabuf object is NULL

by Christian König

Am 18.08.21 um 15:13 schrieb Sa, Nuno: >> From: Christian König <christian.koenig(a)amd.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 2:58 PM >> To: Daniel Vetter <daniel(a)ffwll.ch> >> Cc: Sa, Nuno <Nuno.Sa(a)analog.com>; linaro-mm-sig(a)lists.linaro.org; >> dri-devel(a)lists.freedesktop.org; linux-media(a)vger.kernel.org; Rob >> Clark <rob(a)ti.com> >> Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH] dma-buf: return -EINVAL if >> dmabuf object is NULL >> >> [External] >> >> Am 18.08.21 um 14:46 schrieb Daniel Vetter: >>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 02:31:34PM +0200, Christian König wrote: >>>> Am 18.08.21 um 14:17 schrieb Sa, Nuno: >>>>>> From: Christian König <christian.koenig(a)amd.com> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 2:10 PM >>>>>> To: Sa, Nuno <Nuno.Sa(a)analog.com>; linaro-mm- >> sig(a)lists.linaro.org; >>>>>> dri-devel(a)lists.freedesktop.org; linux-media(a)vger.kernel.org >>>>>> Cc: Rob Clark <rob(a)ti.com>; Sumit Semwal >>>>>> <sumit.semwal(a)linaro.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: return -EINVAL if dmabuf object >> is >>>>>> NULL >>>>>> >>>>>> [External] >>>>>> >>>>>> To be honest I think the if(WARN_ON(!dmabuf)) return -EINVAL >>>>>> handling >>>>>> here is misleading in the first place. >>>>>> >>>>>> Returning -EINVAL on a hard coding error is not good practice and >>>>>> should >>>>>> probably be removed from the DMA-buf subsystem in general. >>>>> Would you say to just return 0 then? I don't think that having the >>>>> dereference is also good.. >>>> No, just run into the dereference. >>>> >>>> Passing NULL as the core object you are working on is a hard coding >> error >>>> and not something we should bubble up as recoverable error. >>>> >>>>> I used -EINVAL to be coherent with the rest of the code. >>>> I rather suggest to remove the check elsewhere as well. >>> It's a lot more complicated, and WARN_ON + bail out is rather >>> well-established code-pattern. There's been plenty of discussions in >> the >>> past that a BUG_ON is harmful since it makes debugging a major >> pain, e.g. >>> >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefens… >> ook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Flore.kernel.org*2Flkml*2FCA*2B55aFw >> yNTLuZgOWMTRuabWobF27ygskuxvFd-P0n- >> 3UNT*3D0Og*40mail.gmail.com*2F&data=04*7C01*7Cchristian.k >> oenig*40amd.com*7C19f53e2a2d1843b65adc08d962463b78*7C3dd896 >> 1fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d*7C0*7C0*7C637648876076613233*7CU >> nknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiL >> CJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000&sdata=ajyBnjePRak3 >> o7ObpBAuJNd08HgkANM9C*2BgzOAeHrMk*3D&reserved=0__;J >> SUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!A3Ni8CS0y2Y!qiDegx4svPUMZrvnzUo >> X7VKvvFpDcedH9gYbRCiWfe_N3fw4zpmA54qxefvMiQ$ >>> There's also a checkpatch check for this. >>> >>> commit 9d3e3c705eb395528fd8f17208c87581b134da48 >>> Author: Joe Perches <joe(a)perches.com> >>> Date: Wed Sep 9 15:37:27 2015 -0700 >>> >>> checkpatch: add warning on BUG/BUG_ON use >>> >>> Anyone who is paranoid about security crashes their machine on any >> WARNING >>> anyway (like syzkaller does). >>> >>> My rule of thumb is that if the WARN_ON + bail-out code is just an if >>> (WARN_ON()) return; then it's fine, if it's more then BUG_ON is the >> better >>> choice perhaps. >>> >>> I think the worst choice is just removing all these checks, because a >> few >>> code reorgs later you might not Oops immediately afterwards >> anymore, and >>> then we'll merge potentially very busted new code. Which is no >> good. >> >> Well BUG_ON(some_codition) is a different problem which I agree on >> with >> Linus that this is problematic. >> >> But "if (WARN_ON(!dmabuf)) return -EINVAL;" is really bad coding >> style >> as well since it hides real problems which are hard errors behind >> warnings. > I agree that doing these kind of checks in the core object of an API is > abusing parameter "validation". I guess a good pattern is having the > warning and let the code flow. But since these checks are already all > over the place I'm not sure the way to go. I'm very new to dma-buf > and I was just checking the code and saw this was not be coherent with > the rest of the API so I thought it would be a straight easy patch... Well, > I could not be more wrong :) Well that existing stuff might actually depend on this is a really good argument to keep it for now or at least until we have a consent on what to do. > Anyways, depending on what's decided, I can send another patch trying > to make these stuff more coherent. At this point, my feeling is that this > patch is to be dropped... At least for now I would hold it back. Thanks, Christian. > > - Nuno Sá > >> Returning -EINVAL indicates a recoverable error which is usually caused >> by userspace giving invalid parameters and should never be abused to >> indicate a driver coding error. >> >> Functions are either intended to take NULL as valid parameter, e.g. like >> kfree(NULL). Or they are intended to work on an object which is >> mandatory to provide. >> >> Christian. >> >>> -Daniel >>> >>> >>> >>>> Christian. >>>> >>>>> - Nuno Sá >>>>> >>>>>> Christian. >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 18.08.21 um 13:58 schrieb Nuno Sá: >>>>>>> On top of warning about a NULL object, we also want to return >> with a >>>>>>> proper error code (as done in 'dma_buf_begin_cpu_access()'). >>>>>> Otherwise, >>>>>>> we will get a NULL pointer dereference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fixes: fc13020e086b ("dma-buf: add support for kernel cpu >> access") >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa(a)analog.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c | 3 ++- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma- >> buf/dma- >>>>>> buf.c >>>>>>> index 63d32261b63f..8ec7876dd523 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c >>>>>>> @@ -1231,7 +1231,8 @@ int dma_buf_end_cpu_access(struct >>>>>> dma_buf *dmabuf, >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> int ret = 0; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - WARN_ON(!dmabuf); >>>>>>> + if (WARN_ON(!dmabuf)) >>>>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> might_lock(&dmabuf->resv->lock.base); >>>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Linaro-mm-sig mailing list >>>> Linaro-mm-sig(a)lists.linaro.org >>>> >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefens… >> ook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Flists.linaro.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2 >> Flinaro-mm- >> sig&data=04*7C01*7Cchristian.koenig*40amd.com*7C19f53e2a2 >> d1843b65adc08d962463b78*7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d* >> 7C0*7C0*7C637648876076613233*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ >> WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0 >> *3D*7C1000&sdata=0E5L4Kid5ZPeKT8Uxx7K61fBXmI4TOsz*2F5IL >> sFpLB*2Fo*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!A3N >> i8CS0y2Y!qiDegx4svPUMZrvnzUoX7VKvvFpDcedH9gYbRCiWfe_N3fw4z >> pmA54oQstzSNA$

4 years, 6 months

Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH] dma-buf: return -EINVAL if dmabuf object is NULL

by Christian König

Am 18.08.21 um 14:17 schrieb Sa, Nuno: >> From: Christian König <christian.koenig(a)amd.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 2:10 PM >> To: Sa, Nuno <Nuno.Sa(a)analog.com>; linaro-mm-sig(a)lists.linaro.org; >> dri-devel(a)lists.freedesktop.org; linux-media(a)vger.kernel.org >> Cc: Rob Clark <rob(a)ti.com>; Sumit Semwal >> <sumit.semwal(a)linaro.org> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: return -EINVAL if dmabuf object is >> NULL >> >> [External] >> >> To be honest I think the if(WARN_ON(!dmabuf)) return -EINVAL >> handling >> here is misleading in the first place. >> >> Returning -EINVAL on a hard coding error is not good practice and >> should >> probably be removed from the DMA-buf subsystem in general. > Would you say to just return 0 then? I don't think that having the > dereference is also good.. No, just run into the dereference. Passing NULL as the core object you are working on is a hard coding error and not something we should bubble up as recoverable error. > I used -EINVAL to be coherent with the rest of the code. I rather suggest to remove the check elsewhere as well. Christian. > > - Nuno Sá > >> Christian. >> >> Am 18.08.21 um 13:58 schrieb Nuno Sá: >>> On top of warning about a NULL object, we also want to return with a >>> proper error code (as done in 'dma_buf_begin_cpu_access()'). >> Otherwise, >>> we will get a NULL pointer dereference. >>> >>> Fixes: fc13020e086b ("dma-buf: add support for kernel cpu access") >>> Signed-off-by: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa(a)analog.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c | 3 ++- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma- >> buf.c >>> index 63d32261b63f..8ec7876dd523 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c >>> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c >>> @@ -1231,7 +1231,8 @@ int dma_buf_end_cpu_access(struct >> dma_buf *dmabuf, >>> { >>> int ret = 0; >>> >>> - WARN_ON(!dmabuf); >>> + if (WARN_ON(!dmabuf)) >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> >>> might_lock(&dmabuf->resv->lock.base); >>>

4 years, 6 months

Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH] dma-buf: return -EINVAL if dmabuf object is NULL

by Christian König

To be honest I think the if(WARN_ON(!dmabuf)) return -EINVAL handling here is misleading in the first place. Returning -EINVAL on a hard coding error is not good practice and should probably be removed from the DMA-buf subsystem in general. Christian. Am 18.08.21 um 13:58 schrieb Nuno Sá: > On top of warning about a NULL object, we also want to return with a > proper error code (as done in 'dma_buf_begin_cpu_access()'). Otherwise, > we will get a NULL pointer dereference. > > Fixes: fc13020e086b ("dma-buf: add support for kernel cpu access") > Signed-off-by: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa(a)analog.com> > --- > drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c > index 63d32261b63f..8ec7876dd523 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c > @@ -1231,7 +1231,8 @@ int dma_buf_end_cpu_access(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, > { > int ret = 0; > > - WARN_ON(!dmabuf); > + if (WARN_ON(!dmabuf)) > + return -EINVAL; > > might_lock(&dmabuf->resv->lock.base); >

4 years, 6 months

Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH v3 8/9] kernel: export task_work_add

by Daniel Vetter

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 03:38:23PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote: > The task_work_add function is needed to prevent userspace races with > DRM modesetting rights. > > Some DRM ioctls can change modesetting permissions while other > concurrent users are performing modesetting. To prevent races with > userspace, such functions should flush readers of old permissions > before returning to user mode. As the function that changes > permissions might itself be a reader of the old permissions, we intend > to schedule this flush using task_work_add. > > However, when DRM is compiled as a loadable kernel module without > exporting task_work_add, we get the following compilation error: > > ERROR: modpost: "task_work_add" [drivers/gpu/drm/drm.ko] undefined! > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp(a)intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx(a)gmail.com> Just realized another benefit of pushing the dev->master_rwsem write locks down into ioctls that need them: We wouldn't need this function here exported for use in drm. But also I'm not sure that works any better than the design in your current patch set ... -Daniel > --- > kernel/task_work.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/task_work.c b/kernel/task_work.c > index 1698fbe6f0e1..90000404af2b 100644 > --- a/kernel/task_work.c > +++ b/kernel/task_work.c > @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ int task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct callback_head *work, > > return 0; > } > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(task_work_add); > > /** > * task_work_cancel_match - cancel a pending work added by task_work_add() > -- > 2.25.1 > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch

4 years, 6 months

Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH v3 7/9] drm: update global mutex lock in the ioctl handler

by Daniel Vetter

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 03:38:22PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote: > In a future patch, a read lock on drm_device.master_rwsem is > held in the ioctl handler before the check for ioctl > permissions. However, this produces the following lockdep splat: > > ====================================================== > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 5.14.0-rc6-CI-Patchwork_20831+ #1 Tainted: G U > ------------------------------------------------------ > kms_lease/1752 is trying to acquire lock: > ffffffff827bad88 (drm_global_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: drm_open+0x64/0x280 > > but task is already holding lock: > ffff88812e350108 (&dev->master_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: > drm_ioctl_kernel+0xfb/0x1a0 > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > -> #2 (&dev->master_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}: > lock_acquire+0xd3/0x310 > down_read+0x3b/0x140 > drm_master_internal_acquire+0x1d/0x60 > drm_client_modeset_commit+0x10/0x40 > __drm_fb_helper_restore_fbdev_mode_unlocked+0x88/0xb0 > drm_fb_helper_set_par+0x34/0x40 > intel_fbdev_set_par+0x11/0x40 [i915] > fbcon_init+0x270/0x4f0 > visual_init+0xc6/0x130 > do_bind_con_driver+0x1de/0x2c0 > do_take_over_console+0x10e/0x180 > do_fbcon_takeover+0x53/0xb0 > register_framebuffer+0x22d/0x310 > __drm_fb_helper_initial_config_and_unlock+0x36c/0x540 > intel_fbdev_initial_config+0xf/0x20 [i915] > async_run_entry_fn+0x28/0x130 > process_one_work+0x26d/0x5c0 > worker_thread+0x37/0x390 > kthread+0x13b/0x170 > ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 > > -> #1 (&helper->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: > lock_acquire+0xd3/0x310 > __mutex_lock+0xa8/0x930 > __drm_fb_helper_restore_fbdev_mode_unlocked+0x44/0xb0 > intel_fbdev_restore_mode+0x2b/0x50 [i915] > drm_lastclose+0x27/0x50 > drm_release_noglobal+0x42/0x60 > __fput+0x9e/0x250 > task_work_run+0x6b/0xb0 > exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1c5/0x1d0 > syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x19/0x50 > do_syscall_64+0x46/0xb0 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > > -> #0 (drm_global_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: > validate_chain+0xb39/0x1e70 > __lock_acquire+0x5a1/0xb70 > lock_acquire+0xd3/0x310 > __mutex_lock+0xa8/0x930 > drm_open+0x64/0x280 > drm_stub_open+0x9f/0x100 > chrdev_open+0x9f/0x1d0 > do_dentry_open+0x14a/0x3a0 > dentry_open+0x53/0x70 > drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl+0x3cb/0x970 > drm_ioctl_kernel+0xc9/0x1a0 > drm_ioctl+0x201/0x3d0 > __x64_sys_ioctl+0x6a/0xa0 > do_syscall_64+0x37/0xb0 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > > other info that might help us debug this: > Chain exists of: > drm_global_mutex --> &helper->lock --> &dev->master_rwsem > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > CPU0 CPU1 > ---- ---- > lock(&dev->master_rwsem); > lock(&helper->lock); > lock(&dev->master_rwsem); > lock(drm_global_mutex); > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > The lock hierarchy inversion happens because we grab the > drm_global_mutex while already holding on to master_rwsem. To avoid > this, we do some prep work to grab the drm_global_mutex before > checking for ioctl permissions. > > At the same time, we update the check for the global mutex to use the > drm_dev_needs_global_mutex helper function. This is intentional, essentially we force all non-legacy drivers to have unlocked ioctl (otherwise everyone forgets to set that flag). For non-legacy drivers the global lock only ensures ordering between drm_open and lastclose (I think at least), and between drm_dev_register/unregister and the backwards ->load/unload callbacks (which are called in the wrong place, but we cannot fix that for legacy drivers). ->load/unload should be completely unused (maybe radeon still uses it), and ->lastclose is also on the decline. Maybe we should update the comment of drm_global_mutex to explain what it protects and why. I'm also confused how this patch connects to the splat, since for i915 we shouldn't be taking the drm_global_lock here at all. The problem seems to be the drm_open_helper when we create a new lease, which is an entirely different can of worms. I'm honestly not sure how to best do that, but we should be able to create a file and then call drm_open_helper directly, or well a version of that which never takes the drm_global_mutex. Because that is not needed for nested drm_file opening: - legacy drivers never go down this path because leases are only supported with modesetting, and modesetting is only supported for non-legacy drivers - the races against dev->open_count due to last_close or ->load callbacks don't matter, because for the entire ioctl we already have an open drm_file and that wont disappear. So this should work, but I'm not entirely sure how to make it work. -Daniel > Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx(a)gmail.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c | 18 +++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > index 880fc565d599..2cb57378a787 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > @@ -779,19 +779,19 @@ long drm_ioctl_kernel(struct file *file, drm_ioctl_t *func, void *kdata, > if (drm_dev_is_unplugged(dev)) > return -ENODEV; > > + /* Enforce sane locking for modern driver ioctls. */ > + if (unlikely(drm_dev_needs_global_mutex(dev)) && !(flags & DRM_UNLOCKED)) > + mutex_lock(&drm_global_mutex); > + > retcode = drm_ioctl_permit(flags, file_priv); > if (unlikely(retcode)) > - return retcode; > + goto out; > > - /* Enforce sane locking for modern driver ioctls. */ > - if (likely(!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_LEGACY)) || > - (flags & DRM_UNLOCKED)) > - retcode = func(dev, kdata, file_priv); > - else { > - mutex_lock(&drm_global_mutex); > - retcode = func(dev, kdata, file_priv); > + retcode = func(dev, kdata, file_priv); > + > +out: > + if (unlikely(drm_dev_needs_global_mutex(dev)) && !(flags & DRM_UNLOCKED)) > mutex_unlock(&drm_global_mutex); > - } > return retcode; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_ioctl_kernel); > -- > 2.25.1 > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch

4 years, 6 months

Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH v3 5/9] drm: protect magic_map, unique{_len} with master_lookup_lock

by Daniel Vetter

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 03:38:20PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote: > Currently, drm_device.master_mutex is used to serialize writes to the > drm_master.magic_map idr and to protect drm_master.unique{_len}. > > In preparation for converting drm_device.master_mutex into an outer > rwsem that might be read locked before entering some of these > functions, we can instead serialize access to drm_master.magic_map and > drm_master.unique{_len} using drm_device.master_lookup_lock which is > an inner lock. > > Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx(a)gmail.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c | 12 +++++++----- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c | 10 ++++++---- > include/drm/drm_auth.h | 6 +++--- > include/drm/drm_device.h | 7 ++++++- > 4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c > index b7230604496b..0acb444fbbac 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c > @@ -98,10 +98,10 @@ int drm_getmagic(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *file_priv) > struct drm_master *master; > int ret = 0; > > - mutex_lock(&dev->master_mutex); > + spin_lock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); > master = file_priv->master; > if (!master) { > - mutex_unlock(&dev->master_mutex); > + spin_unlock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); > return -EINVAL; > } > > @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int drm_getmagic(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *file_priv) > file_priv->magic = ret; > } > auth->magic = file_priv->magic; > - mutex_unlock(&dev->master_mutex); > + spin_unlock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); > > DRM_DEBUG("%u\n", auth->magic); > > @@ -127,13 +127,13 @@ int drm_authmagic(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > > DRM_DEBUG("%u\n", auth->magic); > > - mutex_lock(&dev->master_mutex); > + spin_lock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); > file = idr_find(&file_priv->master->magic_map, auth->magic); > if (file) { > file->authenticated = 1; > idr_replace(&file_priv->master->magic_map, NULL, auth->magic); > } > - mutex_unlock(&dev->master_mutex); > + spin_unlock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); > > return file ? 0 : -EINVAL; > } > @@ -366,8 +366,10 @@ void drm_master_release(struct drm_file *file_priv) > if (!master) > goto unlock; > > + spin_lock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); > if (file_priv->magic) > idr_remove(&master->magic_map, file_priv->magic); > + spin_unlock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); > > if (!drm_is_current_master_locked(file_priv)) > goto out; > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > index 4d029d3061d9..e5c3845b6e62 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > @@ -119,21 +119,21 @@ int drm_getunique(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > struct drm_unique *u = data; > struct drm_master *master; > > - mutex_lock(&dev->master_mutex); > + spin_lock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); > master = file_priv->master; > if (!master) { > - mutex_unlock(&dev->master_mutex); > + spin_unlock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); > return -EINVAL; > } > > if (u->unique_len >= master->unique_len) { > if (copy_to_user(u->unique, master->unique, master->unique_len)) { > - mutex_unlock(&dev->master_mutex); > + spin_unlock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); copy_to_user while holding a spinlock isn't going to work well, at least when we take a fault. The might_fault() annotations (if enabled) should catch that. Which is really annoying, because it kinda puts a wrench into this neat plan here :-/ > return -EFAULT; > } > } > u->unique_len = master->unique_len; > - mutex_unlock(&dev->master_mutex); > + spin_unlock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); > > return 0; > } > @@ -405,7 +405,9 @@ static int drm_setversion(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *f > * Version 1.1 includes tying of DRM to specific device > * Version 1.4 has proper PCI domain support > */ > + spin_lock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); > retcode = drm_set_busid(dev, file_priv); > + spin_unlock(&dev->master_lookup_lock); Similar issue with drm_set_busid, calling kmalloc under a spinlock isn't a good idea. This one here is at least much easier to fix by pushing the locking down a lot. I'm wondering a bit whether a better fix for these ioctls wouldn't be to - drop the DRM_MASTER flag from the ioctl table - take the rwsem in write mode (which would replace our current dev->master_lock) and check for master status while holding that lock I think that would result in simpler locking or am I missing something? Maybe this could even work as a replacment for the lookup spinlock, since we're untangling the nesting quite a bit? Really just tossing ideas around since I feel like we don't have the best one yet ... -Daniel > if (retcode) > goto done; > } > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_auth.h b/include/drm/drm_auth.h > index ba248ca8866f..f5be73153798 100644 > --- a/include/drm/drm_auth.h > +++ b/include/drm/drm_auth.h > @@ -67,17 +67,17 @@ struct drm_master { > struct drm_device *dev; > /** > * @unique: Unique identifier: e.g. busid. Protected by > - * &drm_device.master_mutex. > + * &drm_device.master_lookup_lock. > */ > char *unique; > /** > * @unique_len: Length of unique field. Protected by > - * &drm_device.master_mutex. > + * &drm_device.master_lookup_lock. > */ > int unique_len; > /** > * @magic_map: Map of used authentication tokens. Protected by > - * &drm_device.master_mutex. > + * &drm_device.master_lookup_lock. > */ > struct idr magic_map; > void *driver_priv; > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_device.h b/include/drm/drm_device.h > index 506eb2784819..cf5d15aeb25f 100644 > --- a/include/drm/drm_device.h > +++ b/include/drm/drm_device.h > @@ -152,7 +152,12 @@ struct drm_device { > */ > struct mutex master_mutex; > > - /** @master_lookup_lock: Serializes &drm_file.master. */ > + /** > + * @master_lookup_lock: > + * > + * Serializes &drm_file.master, &drm_master.magic_map, > + * &drm_master.unique, and &drm_master.unique_len. > + */ > spinlock_t master_lookup_lock; > > /** > -- > 2.25.1 > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch

4 years, 6 months

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Linaro-mm-sig