Hi Am 18.04.23 um 10:32 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 07:32:19PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:The fbdev test of IGT may write after EOF, which lead to out-of-bound access for the drm drivers using fbdev-generic. For example, on a x86 + aspeed bmc card platform, with a 1680x1050 resolution display, running fbdev test if IGT will cause the linux kernel hang with the following call trace: Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI [IGT] fbdev: starting subtest eof Workqueue: events drm_fb_helper_damage_work [drm_kms_helper] [IGT] fbdev: starting subtest nullptr RIP: 0010:memcpy_erms+0xa/0x20 RSP: 0018:ffffa17d40167d98 EFLAGS: 00010246 RAX: ffffa17d4eb7fa80 RBX: ffffa17d40e0aa80 RCX: 00000000000014c0 RDX: 0000000000001a40 RSI: ffffa17d40e0b000 RDI: ffffa17d4eb80000 RBP: ffffa17d40167e20 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff89522ecff8c0 R10: ffffa17d4e4c5000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffa17d4eb7fa80 R13: 0000000000001a40 R14: 000000000000041a R15: ffffa17d40167e30 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff895257380000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: ffffa17d40e0b000 CR3: 00000001eaeca006 CR4: 00000000001706e0 Call Trace: <TASK> ? drm_fbdev_generic_helper_fb_dirty+0x207/0x330 [drm_kms_helper] drm_fb_helper_damage_work+0x8f/0x170 [drm_kms_helper] process_one_work+0x21f/0x430 worker_thread+0x4e/0x3c0 ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10 kthread+0xf4/0x120 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x2c/0x50 </TASK> CR2: ffffa17d40e0b000 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- The direct reason is that damage rectange computed by drm_fb_helper_memory_range_to_clip() does not guaranteed to be in-bound. It is already results in workaround code populate to elsewhere. Another reason is that exposing a larger buffer size than the actual needed help to trigger this bug intrinsic in drm_fb_helper_memory_range_to_clip(). Others fbdev emulation solutions write to the GEM buffer directly, they won't reproduce this bug because the .fb_dirty function callback do not being hooked, so no chance is given to drm_fb_helper_memory_range_to_clip() to generate a out-of-bound when drm_fb_helper_sys_write() is called. This patch break the trigger condition of this bug by shrinking the shadow buffer size to sizes->surface_height * buffer->fb->pitches[0]. Fixes: '8fbc9af55de0 ("drm/fbdev-generic: Set screen size to size of GEM buffer")' Signed-off-by: Sui Jingfeng <suijingfeng@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fbdev_generic.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fbdev_generic.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fbdev_generic.c index 8e5148bf40bb..b057cfbba938 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fbdev_generic.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fbdev_generic.c @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ static int drm_fbdev_generic_helper_fb_probe(struct drm_fb_helper *fb_helper, fb_helper->buffer = buffer; fb_helper->fb = buffer->fb;- screen_size = buffer->gem->size;+ screen_size = sizes->surface_height * buffer->fb->pitches[0];So I read core some more and stumbled over drm_fb_helper_deferred_io(). Which has all the code and comments about this, including limiting. I think it would be clearer if we fix the issue there, instead of passing limits around in obscure places that then again get broken? The thing is, Thomas both authored the limit checks in drm_fb_helper_deferred_io() and the patch which broken them again, so clearly this isn't very obvious. I'm thinking of something like this: diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c index ef4eb8b12766..726dab67c359 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c @@ -697,10 +697,7 @@ void drm_fb_helper_deferred_io(struct fb_info *info, struct list_head *pagerefli * of the screen and account for non-existing scanlines. Hence, * keep the covered memory area within the screen buffer. */ - if (info->screen_size) - total_size = info->screen_size; - else - total_size = info->fix.smem_len; + total_size = helper->fb->height * helper->fb->pitches[0];
But we now have two places where we compute the size of the buffer. That violates the SPOT rule. Can we at least add a warning if total_size is larger than either of the info fields?
Yesterday, I've been thinking about disconnecting the size of the DRM framebuffer from the overall size of the GEM buffer. That's probably the only way to fully resolve those problems. It's just that it's a huge can of worms. :/
Best regards Thomas
max_off = min(max_off, total_size);if (min_off < max_off) {I think that would make it utmost clear on what we're doing and why. Otherwise we're just going to re-create the same bug again, like we've done already :-) -Danielscreen_buffer = vzalloc(screen_size); if (!screen_buffer) { ret = -ENOMEM; -- 2.25.1
-- Thomas Zimmermann Graphics Driver Developer SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
