On 2023-01-09 01:30:29, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 09/01/2023 01:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On 22/12/2022 01:19, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >> In the event that the topology requests resources that have not been
> >> created by the system (because they are typically not represented in
> >> dpu_mdss_cfg ^1), the resource(s) in global_state (in this case DSC
> >> blocks) remain NULL but will still be returned out of
> >> dpu_rm_get_assigned_resources, where the caller expects to get an array
> >> containing num_blks valid pointers (but instead gets these NULLs).
> >>
> >> To prevent this from happening, where null-pointer dereferences
> >> typically result in a hard-to-debug platform lockup, num_blks shouldn't
> >> increase past NULL blocks and will print an error and break instead.
> >> After all, max_blks represents the static size of the maximum number of
> >> blocks whereas the actual amount varies per platform.
> >>
> >> ^1: which can happen after a git rebase ended up moving additions to
> >> _dpu_cfg to a different struct which has the same patch context.
> >>
> >> Fixes: bb00a452d6f7 ("drm/msm/dpu: Refactor resource manager")
> >> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c | 5 +++++
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > I think the patch is not fully correct. Please check resource
> > availability during allocation. I wouldn't expect an error from
> > get_assigned_resources because of resource exhaustion.
Theoretically patch 5/8 should take care of this, and we should never
reach this failure condition. Emphasis on /should/, this may happen
again if/when another block type is added with sub-par resource
allocation and assignment implementation.
> Another option, since allocation functions (except DSC) already have
> these safety checks: check error message to mention internal
> inconstency: allocated resource doesn't exist.
Is this a suggestion for the wording of the error message?
- Marijn
