Linaro-mm-sig

linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org

15 participants
3025 discussions

Re: Safety of opening up /dev/dma_heap/* to physically present users (udev uaccess tag) ?

by Laurent Pinchart

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:06:24AM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: > Le lundi 13 mai 2024 à 15:51 +0200, Maxime Ripard a écrit : > > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 09:42:00AM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: > > > Le lundi 13 mai 2024 à 10:29 +0200, Maxime Ripard a écrit : > > > > On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:36:08AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 04:07:39PM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: > > > > > > Le mardi 07 mai 2024 à 21:36 +0300, Laurent Pinchart a écrit : > > > > > > > Shorter term, we have a problem to solve, and the best option we have > > > > > > > found so far is to rely on dma-buf heaps as a backend for the frame > > > > > > > buffer allocatro helper in libcamera for the use case described above. > > > > > > > This won't work in 100% of the cases, clearly. It's a stop-gap measure > > > > > > > until we can do better. > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering the security concerned raised on this thread with dmabuf heap > > > > > > allocation not be restricted by quotas, you'd get what you want quickly with > > > > > > memfd + udmabuf instead (which is accounted already). > > > > > > > > > > > > It was raised that distro don't enable udmabuf, but as stated there by Hans, in > > > > > > any cases distro needs to take action to make the softISP works. This > > > > > > alternative is easy and does not interfere in anyway with your future plan or > > > > > > the libcamera API. You could even have both dmabuf heap (for Raspbian) and the > > > > > > safer memfd+udmabuf for the distro with security concerns. > > > > > > > > > > > > And for the long term plan, we can certainly get closer by fixing that issue > > > > > > with accounting. This issue also applied to v4l2 io-ops, so it would be nice to > > > > > > find common set of helpers to fix these exporters. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah if this is just for softisp, then memfd + udmabuf is also what I was > > > > > about to suggest. Not just as a stopgap, but as the real official thing. > > > > > > > > > > udmabuf does kinda allow you to pin memory, but we can easily fix that by > > > > > adding the right accounting and then either let mlock rlimits or cgroups > > > > > kernel memory limits enforce good behavior. > > > > > > > > I think the main drawback with memfd is that it'll be broken for devices > > > > without an IOMMU, and while you said that it's uncommon for GPUs, it's > > > > definitely not for codecs and display engines. > > > > > > In the context of libcamera, the allocation and the alignment done to the video > > > frame is done completely blindly. In that context, there is a lot more then just > > > the allocation type that can go wrong and will lead to a memory copy. The upside > > > of memfd, is that the read cache will help speeding up the copies if they are > > > needed. > > > > dma-heaps provide cacheable buffers too... > > Yes, and why we have cache hints in V4L2 now. There is no clue that softISP code > can read to make the right call. The required cache management in undefined > until all the importer are known. I also don't think heaps currently care to > adapt the dmabuf sync behaviour based on the different importers, or the > addition of a new importer. On top of which, there is insufficient information > on the device to really deduce what is needed. > > > > Another important point is that this is only used if the application haven't > > > provided frames. If your embedded application is non-generic, and you have > > > permissions to access the right heap, the application can solve your specific > > > issue. But in the generic Linux space, Linux kernel API are just insufficient > > > for the "just work" scenario. > > > > ... but they also provide semantics around the memory buffers that no > > other allocation API do. There's at least the mediatek secure playback > > series and another one that I've started to work on to allocate ECC > > protected or unprotected buffers that are just the right use case for > > the heaps, and the target frameworks aren't. > > Let's agree we are both off topic now. The libcamera softISP is currently purely > software, and cannot write to any form of protected memory. As for ECC, I would > hope this usage will be coded in the application and that this application has > been authorized to access the appropriate heaps. > > And finally, none of this fixes the issue that the heap allocation are not being > accounted properly and allow of an easy memory DoS. So uaccess should be granted > with care, meaning that defaulting a "desktop" library to that, means it will > most of the time not work at all. I think that issue should be fixed, regardless of whether or not we end up using dma heaps for libcamera. If we do use them, maybe there will be a higher incentive for somebody involved in this conversation to tackle that problem first :-) And maybe, as a result, the rest of the Linux community will consider with a more open mind usage of dma heaps on desktop systems. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart

1 year, 4 months

Re: Safety of opening up /dev/dma_heap/* to physically present users (udev uaccess tag) ?

by Laurent Pinchart

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:29:22AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:36:08AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 04:07:39PM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Le mardi 07 mai 2024 à 21:36 +0300, Laurent Pinchart a écrit : > > > > Shorter term, we have a problem to solve, and the best option we have > > > > found so far is to rely on dma-buf heaps as a backend for the frame > > > > buffer allocatro helper in libcamera for the use case described above. > > > > This won't work in 100% of the cases, clearly. It's a stop-gap measure > > > > until we can do better. > > > > > > Considering the security concerned raised on this thread with dmabuf heap > > > allocation not be restricted by quotas, you'd get what you want quickly with > > > memfd + udmabuf instead (which is accounted already). > > > > > > It was raised that distro don't enable udmabuf, but as stated there by Hans, in > > > any cases distro needs to take action to make the softISP works. This > > > alternative is easy and does not interfere in anyway with your future plan or > > > the libcamera API. You could even have both dmabuf heap (for Raspbian) and the > > > safer memfd+udmabuf for the distro with security concerns. > > > > > > And for the long term plan, we can certainly get closer by fixing that issue > > > with accounting. This issue also applied to v4l2 io-ops, so it would be nice to > > > find common set of helpers to fix these exporters. > > > > Yeah if this is just for softisp, then memfd + udmabuf is also what I was > > about to suggest. Not just as a stopgap, but as the real official thing. > > > > udmabuf does kinda allow you to pin memory, but we can easily fix that by > > adding the right accounting and then either let mlock rlimits or cgroups > > kernel memory limits enforce good behavior. > > I think the main drawback with memfd is that it'll be broken for devices > without an IOMMU, and while you said that it's uncommon for GPUs, it's > definitely not for codecs and display engines. If the application wants to share buffers between the camera and a display engine or codec, it should arguably not use the libcamera FrameBufferAllocator, but allocate the buffers from the display or the encoder. memfd wouldn't be used in that case. We need to eat our own dogfood though. If we want to push the responsibility for buffer allocation in the buffer sharing case to the application, we need to modify the cam application to do so when using the KMS backend. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart

1 year, 4 months

Re: [PATCH] epoll: try to be a _bit_ better about file lifetimes

by David Laight

From: Christian Brauner > Sent: 10 May 2024 11:55 > > > For the uapi issue you describe below my take would be that we should just > > try, and hope that everyone's been dutifully using O_CLOEXEC. But maybe > > I'm biased from the gpu world, where we've been hammering it in that > > "O_CLOEXEC or bust" mantra since well over a decade. Really the only valid > > Oh, we're very much on the same page. All new file descriptor types that > I've added over the years are O_CLOEXEC by default. IOW, you need to > remove O_CLOEXEC explicitly (see pidfd as an example). And imho, any new > fd type that's added should just be O_CLOEXEC by default. For fd a shell redirect creates you may want so be able to say 'this fd will have O_CLOEXEC set after the next exec'. Also (possibly) a flag that can't be cleared once set and that gets kept by dup() etc. But maybe that is excessive? I've certainly used: # ip netns exec ns command 3</sys/class/net in order to be able to (easily) read status for interfaces in the default namespace and a specific namespace. The would be hard if the O_CLOEXEC flag had got set by default. (Especially without a shell builtin to clear it.) David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

1 year, 4 months

Re: [PATCH] epoll: try to be a _bit_ better about file lifetimes

by Linus Torvalds

On Thu, 9 May 2024 at 04:39, Christian Brauner <brauner(a)kernel.org> wrote: > > Not worth it without someone explaining in detail why imho. First pass > should be to try and replace kcmp() in scenarios where it's obviously > not needed or overkill. Ack. > I've added a CLASS(fd_raw) in a preliminary patch since we'll need that > anyway which means that your comparison patch becomes even simpler imho. > I've also added a selftest patch: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git/log/?h=vfs.misc LGTM. Maybe worth adding an explicit test for "open same file, but two separate opens, F_DUPFD_QUERY returns 0? Just to clarify the "it's not testing the file on the filesystem for equality, but the file pointer itself". Linus

1 year, 4 months

Re: Safety of opening up /dev/dma_heap/* to physically present users (udev uaccess tag) ?

by Dmitry Baryshkov

On Tue, 7 May 2024 at 18:15, Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue(a)linaro.org> wrote: > > On 07/05/2024 16:09, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > Ah, I see. Then why do you require the DMA-ble buffer at all? If you are > > providing data to VPU or DRM, then you should be able to get the buffer > > from the data-consuming device. > > Because we don't necessarily know what the consuming device is, if any. > > Could be VPU, could be Zoom/Hangouts via pipewire, could for argument > sake be GPU or DSP. > > Also if we introduce a dependency on another device to allocate the > output buffers - say always taking the output buffer from the GPU, then > we've added another dependency which is more difficult to guarantee > across different arches. Yes. And it should be expected. It's a consumer who knows the restrictions on the buffer. As I wrote, Zoom/Hangouts should not require a DMA buffer at all. Applications should be able to allocate the buffer out of the generic memory. GPUs might also have different requirements. Consider GPUs with VRAM. It might be beneficial to allocate a buffer out of VRAM rather than generic DMA mem. -- With best wishes Dmitry

1 year, 4 months

Re: Safety of opening up /dev/dma_heap/* to physically present users (udev uaccess tag) ?

by Daniel Vetter

On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 04:07:39PM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: > Hi, > > Le mardi 07 mai 2024 à 21:36 +0300, Laurent Pinchart a écrit : > > Shorter term, we have a problem to solve, and the best option we have > > found so far is to rely on dma-buf heaps as a backend for the frame > > buffer allocatro helper in libcamera for the use case described above. > > This won't work in 100% of the cases, clearly. It's a stop-gap measure > > until we can do better. > > Considering the security concerned raised on this thread with dmabuf heap > allocation not be restricted by quotas, you'd get what you want quickly with > memfd + udmabuf instead (which is accounted already). > > It was raised that distro don't enable udmabuf, but as stated there by Hans, in > any cases distro needs to take action to make the softISP works. This > alternative is easy and does not interfere in anyway with your future plan or > the libcamera API. You could even have both dmabuf heap (for Raspbian) and the > safer memfd+udmabuf for the distro with security concerns. > > And for the long term plan, we can certainly get closer by fixing that issue > with accounting. This issue also applied to v4l2 io-ops, so it would be nice to > find common set of helpers to fix these exporters. Yeah if this is just for softisp, then memfd + udmabuf is also what I was about to suggest. Not just as a stopgap, but as the real official thing. udmabuf does kinda allow you to pin memory, but we can easily fix that by adding the right accounting and then either let mlock rlimits or cgroups kernel memory limits enforce good behavior. -Sima -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch

1 year, 4 months

Re: [PATCH] epoll: try to be a _bit_ better about file lifetimes

by Linus Torvalds

On Sat, 4 May 2024 at 02:37, Christian Brauner <brauner(a)kernel.org> wrote: > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c > @@ -244,13 +244,18 @@ static __poll_t dma_buf_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *poll) > if (!dmabuf || !dmabuf->resv) > return EPOLLERR; > > + if (!get_file_active(&dmabuf->file)) > + return EPOLLERR; [...] I *really* don't think anything that touches dma-buf.c can possibly be right. This is not a dma-buf.c bug. This is purely an epoll bug. Lookie here, the fundamental issue is that epoll can call '->poll()' on a file descriptor that is being closed concurrently. That means that *ANY* driver that relies on *any* data structure that is managed by the lifetime of the 'struct file' will have problems. Look, here's sock_poll(): static __poll_t sock_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait) { struct socket *sock = file->private_data; and that first line looks about as innocent as it possibly can, right? Now, imagine that this is called from 'epoll' concurrently with the file being closed for the last time (but it just hasn't _quite_ reached eventpoll_release() yet). Now, imagine that the kernel is built with preemption, and the epoll thread gets preempted _just_ before it loads 'file->private_data'. Furthermore, the machine is under heavy load, and it just stays off its CPU a long time. Now, during this TOTALLY INNOCENT sock_poll(), in another thread, the file closing completes, eventpoll_release() finishes, and the preemption of the poll() thing just takes so long that you go through an RCU period too, so that the actual file has been released too. So now that totally innoced file->private_data load in the poll() is probably going to get random data. Yes, the file is allocated as SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU, so it's probably still a file. Not guaranteed, even the slab will get fully free'd in some situations. And yes, the above case is impossible to hit in practice. You have to hit quite the small race window with an operation that practically never happens in the first place. But my point is that the fact that the problem with file->f_count lifetimes happens for that dmabuf driver is not the fault of the dmabuf code. Not at all. It is *ENTIRELY* a bug in epoll, and the dmabuf code is probably just easier to hit because it has a poll() function that does things that have longer lifetimes than most things, and interacts more directly with that f_count. So I really don't understand why Al thinks this is "dmabuf does bad things with f_count". It damn well does not. dma-buf is the GOOD GUY here. It's doing things *PROPERLY*. It's taking refcounts like it damn well should. The fact that it takes ref-counts on something that the epoll code has messed up is *NOT* its fault. Linus

1 year, 4 months

Re: [PATCH] epoll: try to be a _bit_ better about file lifetimes

by Daniel Vetter

On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 12:08:57PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 04:29:44PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > > Am 04.05.24 um 20:20 schrieb Linus Torvalds: > > > On Sat, 4 May 2024 at 08:32, Linus Torvalds > > > <torvalds(a)linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > Lookie here, the fundamental issue is that epoll can call '->poll()' > > > > on a file descriptor that is being closed concurrently. > > > Thinking some more about this, and replying to myself... > > > > > > Actually, I wonder if we could *really* fix this by simply moving the > > > eventpoll_release() to where it really belongs. > > > > > > If we did it in file_close_fd_locked(), it would actually make a > > > *lot* more sense. Particularly since eventpoll actually uses this: > > > > > > struct epoll_filefd { > > > struct file *file; > > > int fd; > > > } __packed; > > > > > > ie it doesn't just use the 'struct file *', it uses the 'fd' itself > > > (for ep_find()). > > > > > > (Strictly speaking, it should also have a pointer to the 'struct > > > files_struct' to make the 'int fd' be meaningful). > > > > While I completely agree on this I unfortunately have to ruin the idea. > > > > Before we had KCMP some people relied on the strange behavior of eventpoll > > to compare struct files when the fd is the same. > > > > I just recently suggested that solution to somebody at AMD as a workaround > > when KCMP is disabled because of security hardening and I'm pretty sure I've > > seen it somewhere else as well. > > > > So when we change that it would break (undocumented?) UAPI behavior. > > I've worked on that a bit yesterday and I learned new things about epoll > and ran into some limitations. > > Like, what happens if process P1 has a file descriptor registered in an > epoll instance and now P1 forks and creates P2. So every file that P1 > maintains gets copied into a new file descriptor table for P2. And the > same file descriptors refer to the same files for both P1 and P2. So this is pretty similar to any other struct file that has resources hanging off the struct file instead of the underlying inode. Like drm chardev files, where all the buffers, gpu contexts and everything else hangs off the file and there's no other way to get at them (except when exporting to some explicitly meant-for-sharing file like dma-buf). If you fork() that it's utter hilarity, which is why absolutely everyone should set O_CLOEXEC on these. Or EPOLL_CLOEXEC for epoll_create. For the uapi issue you describe below my take would be that we should just try, and hope that everyone's been dutifully using O_CLOEXEC. But maybe I'm biased from the gpu world, where we've been hammering it in that "O_CLOEXEC or bust" mantra since well over a decade. Really the only valid use-case is something like systemd handing open files to a service, where it drops priviledges even well before the exec() call. But we can't switch around the defaults for any of these special open files with anything more than just a current seek position as state, since that breaks uapi. -Sima > > So there's two interesting cases here: > > (1) P2 explicitly removes the file descriptor from the epoll instance > via epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_DEL). That removal affects both P1 and P2 > since the <fd, file> pair is only registered once and it isn't > marked whether it belongs to P1 and P2 fdtable. > > So effectively fork()ing with epoll creates a weird shared state > where removal of file descriptors that were registered before the > fork() affects both child and parent. > > I found that surprising even though I've worked with epoll quite > extensively in low-level userspace. > > (2) P2 doesn't close it's file descriptors. It just exits. Since removal > of the file descriptor from the epoll instance isn't done during > close() but during last fput() P1's epoll state remains unaffected > by P2's sloppy exit because P1 still holds references to all files > in its fdtable. > > (Sidenote, if one ends up adding every more duped-fds into epoll > instance that one doesn't explicitly close and all of them refer to > the same file wouldn't one just be allocating new epitems that > are kept around for a really long time?) > > So if the removal of the fd would now be done during close() or during > exit_files() when we call close_files() and since there's currently no > way of differentiating whether P1 or P2 own that fd it would mean that > (2) collapses into (1) and we'd always alter (1)'s epoll state. That > would be a UAPI break. > > So say we record the fdtable to get ownership of that file descriptor so > P2 doesn't close anything in (2) that really belongs to P1 to fix that > problem. > > But afaict, that would break another possible use-case. Namely, where P1 > creates an epoll instance and registeres fds and then fork()s to create > P2. Now P1 can exit and P2 takes over the epoll loop of P1. This > wouldn't work anymore because P1 would deregister all fds it owns in > that epoll instance during exit. I didn't see an immediate nice way of > fixing that issue. > > But note that taking over an epoll loop from the parent doesn't work > reliably for some file descriptors. Consider man signalfd(2): > > epoll(7) semantics > If a process adds (via epoll_ctl(2)) a signalfd file descriptor to an epoll(7) instance, > then epoll_wait(2) returns events only for signals sent to that process. In particular, > if the process then uses fork(2) to create a child process, then the child will be able > to read(2) signals that are sent to it using the signalfd file descriptor, but > epoll_wait(2) will not indicate that the signalfd file descriptor is ready. In this > scenario, a possible workaround is that after the fork(2), the child process can close > the signalfd file descriptor that it inherited from the parent process and then create > another signalfd file descriptor and add it to the epoll instance. Alternatively, the > parent and the child could delay creating their (separate) signalfd file descriptors and > adding them to the epoll instance until after the call to fork(2). > > So effectively P1 opens a signalfd and registers it in an epoll > instance. Then it fork()s and creates P2. Now both P1 and P2 call > epoll_wait(). Since signalfds are always relative to the caller and P1 > did call signalfd_poll() to register the callback only P1 can get > events. So P2 can't take over signalfds in that epoll loop. > > Honestly, the inheritance semantics of epoll across fork() seem pretty > wonky and it would've been better if an epoll fd inherited across > would've returned ESTALE or EINVAL or something. And if that inheritance > of epoll instances would really be a big use-case there'd be some > explicit way to enable this. -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch

1 year, 4 months

Re: [PATCH] dmabuf: fix dmabuf file poll uaf issue

by Christian König

Am 18.04.24 um 03:33 schrieb zhiguojiang: > 在 2024/4/15 19:57, Christian König 写道: >> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from >> christian.koenig(a)amd.com. Learn why this is important at >> https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] >> >> Am 15.04.24 um 12:35 schrieb zhiguojiang: >>> 在 2024/4/12 14:39, Christian König 写道: >>>> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from >>>> christian.koenig(a)amd.com. Learn why this is important at >>>> https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] >>>> >>>> Am 12.04.24 um 08:19 schrieb zhiguojiang: >>>>> [SNIP] >>>>> -> Here task 2220 do epoll again where internally it will get/put >>>>> then >>>>> start to free twice and lead to final crash. >>>>> >>>>> Here is the basic flow: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Thread A install the dma_buf_fd via dma_buf_export, the fd >>>>> refcount >>>>> is 1 >>>>> >>>>> 2. Thread A add the fd to epoll list via epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_ADD) >>>>> >>>>> 3. After use the dma buf, Thread A close the fd, then here fd >>>>> refcount >>>>> is 0, >>>>> and it will run __fput finally to release the file >>>> >>>> Stop, that isn't correct. >>>> >>>> The fs layer which calls dma_buf_poll() should make sure that the file >>>> can't go away until the function returns. >>>> >>>> Then inside dma_buf_poll() we add another reference to the file while >>>> installing the callback: >>>> >>>> /* Paired with fput in dma_buf_poll_cb */ >>>> get_file(dmabuf->file); >>> Hi, >>> >>> The problem may just occurred here. >>> >>> Is it possible file reference count already decreased to 0 and fput >>> already being in progressing just before calling >>> get_file(dmabuf->file) in dma_buf_poll()? >> >> No, exactly that isn't possible. >> >> If a function gets a dma_buf pointer or even more general any reference >> counted pointer which has already decreased to 0 then that is a major >> bug in the caller of that function. >> >> BTW: It's completely illegal to work around such issues by using >> file_count() or RCU functions. So when you suggest stuff like that it >> will immediately face rejection. >> >> Regards, >> Christian. > Hi, > > Thanks for your kind comment. > > 'If a function gets a dma_buf pointer or even more general any reference > > counted pointer which has already decreased to 0 then that is a major > > bug in the caller of that function.' > > According to the issue log, we can see the dma buf file close and > epoll operation running in parallel. > > Apparently at the moment caller calls epoll, although another task > caller already called close on the same fd, but this fd was still in > progress to close, so fd is still valid, thus no EBADF returned to > caller. No, exactly that can't happen either. As far as I can see the EPOLL holds a reference to the files it contains. So it is perfectly valid to add the file descriptor to EPOLL and then close it. In this case the file won't be closed, but be kept alive by it's reference in the EPOLL file descriptor. > > Then the two task contexts operate on same dma buf fd(one is close, > another is epoll) in kernel space. > > Please kindly help to comment whether above scenario is possible. > > If there is some bug in the caller logic, Can u help to point it out? :) Well what could be is that the EPOLL implementation is broken somehow, but I have really doubts on that. As I said before the most likely explanation is that you have a broken device driver which messes up the DMA-buf file reference count somehow. Regards, Christian. > > Regards, > Zhiguo >> >>> >>>> >>>> This reference is only dropped after the callback is completed in >>>> dma_buf_poll_cb(): >>>> >>>> /* Paired with get_file in dma_buf_poll */ >>>> fput(dmabuf->file); >>>> >>>> So your explanation for the issue just seems to be incorrect. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4. Here Thread A not do epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_DEL) manunally, so it >>>>> still resides in one epoll_list. >>>>> Although __fput will call eventpoll_release to remove the file from >>>>> binded epoll list, >>>>> but it has small time window where Thread B jumps in. >>>> >>>> Well if that is really the case then that would then be a bug in >>>> epoll_ctl(). >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 5. During the small window, Thread B do the poll action for >>>>> dma_buf_fd, where it will fget/fput for the file, >>>>> this means the fd refcount will be 0 -> 1 -> 0, and it will call >>>>> __fput again. >>>>> This will lead to __fput twice for the same file. >>>>> >>>>> 6. So the potenial fix is use get_file_rcu which to check if file >>>>> refcount already zero which means under free. >>>>> If so, we just return and no need to do the dma_buf_poll. >>>> >>>> Well to say it bluntly as far as I can see this suggestion is >>>> completely >>>> nonsense. >>>> >>>> When the reference to the file goes away while dma_buf_poll() is >>>> executed then that's a massive bug in the caller of that function. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Christian. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Here is the race condition: >>>>> >>>>> Thread A Thread B >>>>> dma_buf_export >>>>> fd_refcount is 1 >>>>> epoll_ctl(EPOLL_ADD) >>>>> add dma_buf_fd to epoll list >>>>> close(dma_buf_fd) >>>>> fd_refcount is 0 >>>>> __fput >>>>> dma_buf_poll >>>>> fget >>>>> fput >>>>> fd_refcount is zero again >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >

1 year, 4 months

Re: [PATCH] epoll: try to be a _bit_ better about file lifetimes

by Christian König

Am 08.05.24 um 10:23 schrieb Christian Brauner: > On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 07:45:02PM +0200, Christian König wrote: >> Am 07.05.24 um 18:46 schrieb Linus Torvalds: >>> On Tue, 7 May 2024 at 04:03, Daniel Vetter <daniel(a)ffwll.ch> wrote: >>>> It's really annoying that on some distros/builds we don't have that, and >>>> for gpu driver stack reasons we _really_ need to know whether a fd is the >>>> same as another, due to some messy uniqueness requirements on buffer >>>> objects various drivers have. >>> It's sad that such a simple thing would require two other horrid >>> models (EPOLL or KCMP). >>> >>> There'[s a reason that KCMP is a config option - *some* of that is >>> horrible code - but the "compare file descriptors for equality" is not >>> that reason. >>> >>> Note that KCMP really is a broken mess. It's also a potential security >>> hole, even for the simple things, because of how it ends up comparing >>> kernel pointers (ie it doesn't just say "same file descriptor", it >>> gives an ordering of them, so you can use KCMP to sort things in >>> kernel space). >>> >>> And yes, it orders them after obfuscating the pointer, but it's still >>> not something I would consider sane as a baseline interface. It was >>> designed for checkpoint-restore, it's the wrong thing to use for some >>> "are these file descriptors the same". >>> >>> The same argument goes for using EPOLL for that. Disgusting hack. >>> >>> Just what are the requirements for the GPU stack? Is one of the file >>> descriptors "trusted", IOW, you know what kind it is? >>> >>> Because dammit, it's *so* easy to do. You could just add a core DRM >>> ioctl for it. Literally just >>> >>> struct fd f1 = fdget(fd1); >>> struct fd f2 = fdget(fd2); >>> int same; >>> >>> same = f1.file && f1.file == f2.file; >>> fdput(fd1); >>> fdput(fd2); >>> return same; >>> >>> where the only question is if you also woudl want to deal with O_PATH >>> fd's, in which case the "fdget()" would be "fdget_raw()". >>> >>> Honestly, adding some DRM ioctl for this sounds hacky, but it sounds >>> less hacky than relying on EPOLL or KCMP. >>> >>> I'd be perfectly ok with adding a generic "FISAME" VFS level ioctl >>> too, if this is possibly a more common thing. and not just DRM wants >>> it. >>> >>> Would something like that work for you? >> Well the generic approach yes, the DRM specific one maybe. IIRC we need to >> be able to compare both DRM as well as DMA-buf file descriptors. >> >> The basic problem userspace tries to solve is that drivers might get the >> same fd through two different code paths. >> >> For example application using OpenGL/Vulkan for rendering and VA-API for >> video decoding/encoding at the same time. >> >> Both APIs get a fd which identifies the device to use. It can be the same, >> but it doesn't have to. >> >> If it's the same device driver connection (or in kernel speak underlying >> struct file) then you can optimize away importing and exporting of buffers >> for example. >> >> Additional to that it makes cgroup accounting much easier because you don't >> count things twice because they are shared etc... > One thing to keep in mind is that a generic VFS level comparing function > will only catch the obvious case where you have dup() equivalency as > outlined above by Linus. That's what most people are interested in and > that could easily replace most kcmp() use-cases for comparing fds. > > But, of course there's the case where you have two file descriptors > referring to two different files that reference the same underlying > object (usually stashed in file->private_data). > > For most cases that problem can ofc be solved by comparing the > underlying inode. But that doesn't work for drivers using the generic > anonymous inode infrastructure because it uses the same inode for > everything or for cases where the same underlying object can even be > represented by different inodes. > > So for such cases a driver specific ioctl() to compare two fds will > be needed in addition to the generic helper. At least for the DRM we already have some solution for that, see drmGetPrimaryDeviceNameFromFd() for an example. Basically the file->private_data is still something different, but we use this to figure out if we have two file descriptors (with individual struct files underneath) pointing to the same hw driver. This is important if you need to know if just importing/exporting of DMA-buf handles between the two file descriptors is enough or if you deal with two different hw devices and need to do stuff like format conversion etc... Regards, Christian.

1 year, 4 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Linaro-mm-sig