On 2018-06-27 01:50 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Michel Dänzer (2018-06-26 15:31:47)
>> From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> Fixes the BUG_ON spuriously triggering under the following
>> circumstances:
>>
>> * ttm_eu_reserve_buffers processes a list containing multiple BOs using
>> the same reservation object, so it calls
>> reservation_object_reserve_shared with that reservation object once
>> for each such BO.
>> * In reservation_object_reserve_shared, old->shared_count ==
>> old->shared_max - 1, so obj->staged is freed in preparation of an
>> in-place update.
>> * ttm_eu_fence_buffer_objects calls reservation_object_add_shared_fence
>> once for each of the BOs above, always with the same fence.
>> * The first call adds the fence in the remaining free slot, after which
>> old->shared_count == old->shared_max.
>>
>> In the next call to reservation_object_add_shared_fence, the BUG_ON
>> triggers. However, nothing bad would happen in
>> reservation_object_add_shared_inplace, since the fence is already in the
>> reservation object.
>>
>> Prevent this by moving the BUG_ON to where an overflow would actually
>> happen (e.g. if a buggy caller didn't call
>> reservation_object_reserve_shared before).
>>
>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@xxxxxxx>
>
> I've convinced myself (or rather have not found a valid argument
> against) that being able to call reserve_shared + add_shared multiple
> times for the same fence is an intended part of reservation_object API
>
> I'd double check with Christian though.
Right, I'm interested in Christian's feedback.
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
>> drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
>> index 314eb1071cce..532545b9488e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
>> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
>> @@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ reservation_object_add_shared_inplace(struct reservation_object *obj,
>> if (signaled) {
>> RCU_INIT_POINTER(fobj->shared[signaled_idx], fence);
>> } else {
>> + BUG_ON(fobj->shared_count >= fobj->shared_max);
>
> Personally I would just let kasan detect this and throw away the BUG_ON
> or at least move it behind some DMABUF_BUG_ON().
Hmm. Normally, I'm not a fan of BUG(_ON) either. But in this case, it's
clear that the caller is buggy, and proceeding to write beyond the end
of the array could have far-reaching consequences. I'm leaving that to
somebody else.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
