Am 19.02.2018 um 17:15 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 04:41:55PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 19.02.2018 um 16:24 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 03:19:42PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
>>>> amdgpu needs to verify if userspace sends us valid addresses and the simplest
>>>> way of doing this is to check if the buffer object is locked with the ticket
>>>> of the current submission.
>>>>
>>>> Clean up the access to the ww_mutex internals by providing a function
>>>> for this and extend the check to the thread owning the underlying mutex.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c | 3 ++-
>>>> include/linux/ww_mutex.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
>>>> index eaa3cb0c3ad1..4c04b560e358 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
>>>> @@ -1594,7 +1594,8 @@ int amdgpu_cs_find_mapping(struct amdgpu_cs_parser *parser,
>>>> *map = mapping;
>>>> /* Double check that the BO is reserved by this CS */
>>>> - if (READ_ONCE((*bo)->tbo.resv->lock.ctx) != &parser->ticket)
>>>> + if (!ww_mutex_is_owned_by(&(*bo)->tbo.resv->lock, current,
>>>> + &parser->ticket))
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>> if (!((*bo)->flags & AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_VRAM_CONTIGUOUS)) {
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
>>>> index 39fda195bf78..dd580db289e8 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
>>>> @@ -358,4 +358,21 @@ static inline bool ww_mutex_is_locked(struct ww_mutex *lock)
>>>> return mutex_is_locked(&lock->base);
>>>> }
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * ww_mutex_is_owned_by - is the w/w mutex locked by this task in that context
>>>> + * @lock: the mutex to be queried
>>>> + * @task: the task structure to check
>>>> + * @ctx: the w/w acquire context to test
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Returns true if the mutex is locked in the context by the given task, false
>>>> + * otherwise.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static inline bool ww_mutex_is_owned_by(struct ww_mutex *lock,
>>>> + struct task_struct *task,
>>>> + struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return likely(__mutex_owner(&lock->base) == task) &&
>>>> + READ_ONCE(lock->ctx) == ctx;
>>> Just comparing the context should be good enough. If you ever pass a
>>> ww_acquire_ctx which does not belong to your own thread your seriously
>>> wreaking things much worse already (and if we do catch that, should
>>> probably lock the ctx to a given task when ww-mutex debugging is enabled).
>>>
>>> That also simplifies the function signature.
>>>
>>> Of course that means if you don't have a ctx, you can't test ownership of
>>> a ww_mute, but I think that's not a really valid use-case.
>> Well exactly that is the use case in TTM, see patch #3 in this series.
>>
>> In TTM the evicted BOs are trylocked and so we need a way of testing for
>> ownership without a context.
> I don't think your final patch to keep ww_mutex locked until the end
> works. You can't really nest ww_mutex_trylock with ww_mutex at will (since
> trylock bypasses the entire deadlock avoidance).
Well that is not a problem at all. See we don't nest trylock with normal
lock acquiring, cause that would indeed bypass the whole deadlock detection.
Instead we first use ww_mutex_acquire to lock all BOs which are needed
for a command submission, including the deadlock detection.
Then all additional BOs which needed to be evicted to fulfill the
current request are trylocked.
> If this is really what you want to do, then we need a
> ww_mutex_trylock_ctx, which also fills out the ctx value (so that other
> threads can correctly resolve deadlocks when you hold that lock while
> trying to grab additional locks). In which case you really don't need the
> task pointer.
Actually considered that as well, but it turned out that this is exactly
what I don't want.
Cause then we wouldn't be able to distinct ww_mutex locked with a
context (because they are part of the submission) and without (because
TTM trylocked them).
> Yes it's a disappointment that lockdep doesn't correctly track trylocks,
> it just does basic sanity checks, but then drops them on the floor wrt
> depency tracking. Just in case you wonder why you're not getting a
> lockdeps splat for this. Unfortunately I don't understand lockdep enough
> to be able to fix this gap.
Sorry to disappoint you, but lockdep is indeed capable to correctly
track those trylocked BOs.
Got quite a bunch of warning before I was able to resolve to this solution.
Christian.
> -Daniel
>
>> Christian.
>>
>>> And not needed
>>> for cmd submission, where you need the ctx anyway.
>>>
>>> Besides this interface nit looks all good. With the task check¶meter
>>> removed:
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
>>>
>>> -Daniel
>>>
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> #endif
>>>> --
>>>> 2.14.1
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dri-devel mailing list
>>>> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>> _______________________________________________
>> dri-devel mailing list
>> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
