On 2024-12-03 09:30, Russell, Kent wrote:
[Public]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* amd-gfx <amd-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Andrew Martin <Andrew.Martin@xxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Monday, December 2, 2024 7:45:55 a.m.
*To:* amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Cc:* Kuehling, Felix <Felix.Kuehling@xxxxxxx>; Tudor, Alexandru
<Alexandru.Tudor@xxxxxxx>; Martin, Andrew <Andrew.Martin@xxxxxxx>;
Martin, Andrew <Andrew.Martin@xxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [PATCH v2] drm/amdkfd: Dereference null return value
In the function pqm_uninit there is a call-assignment of "pdd =
kfd_get_process_device_data" which could be null, and this value was
later dereferenced without checking.
Fixes: fb91065851cd ("drm/amdkfd: Refactor queue wptr_bo GART mapping")
Signed-off-by: Andrew Martin <Andrew.Martin@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process_queue_manager.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process_queue_manager.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process_queue_manager.c
index c76db22a1000..89aa578f6c68 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process_queue_manager.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process_queue_manager.c
@@ -212,11 +212,13 @@ static void pqm_clean_queue_resource(struct
process_queue_manager *pqm,
void pqm_uninit(struct process_queue_manager *pqm)
{
struct process_queue_node *pqn, *next;
- struct kfd_process_device *pdd;
list_for_each_entry_safe(pqn, next, &pqm->queues,
process_queue_list) {
if (pqn->q) {
- pdd =
kfd_get_process_device_data(pqn->q->device, pqm->process);
+ struct kfd_process_device *pdd =
kfd_get_process_device_data(pqn->q->device,
+ pqm->process);
+ if (WARN_ON(!pdd))
Would we want a "continue" instead of "break" if the pdd is NULL? Just
in case other ones in the list are still valid? Or is one NULL enough
to just WARN and abort?
I agree, we should use "continue" here. We are leaking memory, but let's
not leak more than necessary. With that fixed, the patch is
Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@xxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Felix
Kent
+ return;
kfd_queue_unref_bo_vas(pdd, &pqn->q->properties);
kfd_queue_release_buffers(pdd,
&pqn->q->properties);
pqm_clean_queue_resource(pqm, pqn);
--
2.43.0
