Hi, Christian
On 9/5/23 15:14, Christian König wrote:
Am 05.09.23 um 10:58 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
If *any* object of a certain WW mutex class is locked, lockdep will
consider *all* mutexes of that class as locked. Also the lock allocation
tracking code will apparently register only the address of the first
mutex locked in a sequence.
This has the odd consequence that if that first mutex is unlocked and
its memory then freed, the lock alloc tracking code will assume that
memory
is freed with a held lock in there.
For now, work around that for drm_exec by releasing the first grabbed
object lock last.
Related lock alloc tracking warning:
[ 322.660067] =========================
[ 322.660070] WARNING: held lock freed!
[ 322.660074] 6.5.0-rc7+ #155 Tainted: G U N
[ 322.660078] -------------------------
[ 322.660081] kunit_try_catch/4981 is freeing memory
ffff888112adc000-ffff888112adc3ff, with a lock still held there!
[ 322.660089] ffff888112adc1a0
(reservation_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
drm_exec_lock_obj+0x11a/0x600 [drm_exec]
[ 322.660104] 2 locks held by kunit_try_catch/4981:
[ 322.660108] #0: ffffc9000343fe18
(reservation_ww_class_acquire){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
test_early_put+0x22f/0x490 [drm_exec_test]
[ 322.660123] #1: ffff888112adc1a0
(reservation_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
drm_exec_lock_obj+0x11a/0x600 [drm_exec]
[ 322.660135]
stack backtrace:
[ 322.660139] CPU: 7 PID: 4981 Comm: kunit_try_catch Tainted: G
U N 6.5.0-rc7+ #155
[ 322.660146] Hardware name: ASUS System Product Name/PRIME B560M-A
AC, BIOS 0403 01/26/2021
[ 322.660152] Call Trace:
[ 322.660155] <TASK>
[ 322.660158] dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x90
[ 322.660164] debug_check_no_locks_freed+0x20b/0x2b0
[ 322.660172] slab_free_freelist_hook+0xa1/0x160
[ 322.660179] ? drm_exec_unlock_all+0x168/0x2a0 [drm_exec]
[ 322.660186] __kmem_cache_free+0xb2/0x290
[ 322.660192] drm_exec_unlock_all+0x168/0x2a0 [drm_exec]
[ 322.660200] drm_exec_fini+0xf/0x1c0 [drm_exec]
[ 322.660206] test_early_put+0x289/0x490 [drm_exec_test]
[ 322.660215] ? __pfx_test_early_put+0x10/0x10 [drm_exec_test]
[ 322.660222] ? __kasan_check_byte+0xf/0x40
[ 322.660227] ? __ksize+0x63/0x140
[ 322.660233] ? drmm_add_final_kfree+0x3e/0xa0 [drm]
[ 322.660289] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x30/0x60
[ 322.660294] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x7d/0x100
[ 322.660301] ? __pfx_kunit_try_run_case+0x10/0x10 [kunit]
[ 322.660310] ? __pfx_kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x10/0x10
[kunit]
[ 322.660319] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [kunit]
[ 322.660328] kthread+0x2e7/0x3c0
[ 322.660334] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
[ 322.660339] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70
[ 322.660345] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
[ 322.660349] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30
[ 322.660358] </TASK>
[ 322.660818] ok 8 test_early_put
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_exec.c | 2 +-
include/drm/drm_exec.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_exec.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_exec.c
index ff69cf0fb42a..5d2809de4517 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_exec.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_exec.c
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static void drm_exec_unlock_all(struct drm_exec *exec)
struct drm_gem_object *obj;
unsigned long index;
- drm_exec_for_each_locked_object(exec, index, obj) {
+ drm_exec_for_each_locked_object_reverse(exec, index, obj) {
Well that's a really good catch, just one more additional thought below.
dma_resv_unlock(obj->resv);
drm_gem_object_put(obj);
}
diff --git a/include/drm/drm_exec.h b/include/drm/drm_exec.h
index e0462361adf9..55764cf7c374 100644
--- a/include/drm/drm_exec.h
+++ b/include/drm/drm_exec.h
@@ -51,6 +51,20 @@ struct drm_exec {
struct drm_gem_object *prelocked;
};
+/**
+ * drm_exec_obj() - Return the object for a give drm_exec index
+ * @exec: Pointer to the drm_exec context
+ * @index: The index.
+ *
+ * Return: Pointer to the locked object corresponding to @index if
+ * index is within the number of locked objects. NULL otherwise.
+ */
+static inline struct drm_gem_object *
+drm_exec_obj(struct drm_exec *exec, unsigned long index)
+{
+ return index < exec->num_objects ? exec->objects[index] : NULL;
+}
+
/**
* drm_exec_for_each_locked_object - iterate over all the locked
objects
* @exec: drm_exec object
@@ -59,10 +73,23 @@ struct drm_exec {
*
* Iterate over all the locked GEM objects inside the drm_exec object.
*/
-#define drm_exec_for_each_locked_object(exec, index, obj) \
- for (index = 0, obj = (exec)->objects[0]; \
- index < (exec)->num_objects; \
- ++index, obj = (exec)->objects[index])
+#define drm_exec_for_each_locked_object(exec, index, obj) \
+ for ((index) = 0; ((obj) = drm_exec_obj(exec, index)); ++(index))
Mhm, that makes it possible to modify the number of objects while
inside the loop, doesn't it?
Sorry, you lost me a bit there. Isn't that possible with the previous
code as well?
/Thanks,
Thomas
I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not.
Regards,
Christian.
+
+/**
+ * drm_exec_for_each_locked_object_reverse - iterate over all the
locked
+ * objects in reverse locking order
+ * @exec: drm_exec object
+ * @index: unsigned long index for the iteration
+ * @obj: the current GEM object
+ *
+ * Iterate over all the locked GEM objects inside the drm_exec
object in
+ * reverse locking order. Note that @index may go below zero and wrap,
+ * but that will be caught by drm_exec_object(), returning a NULL
object.
+ */
+#define drm_exec_for_each_locked_object_reverse(exec, index, obj) \
+ for ((index) = (exec)->num_objects - 1; \
+ ((obj) = drm_exec_obj(exec, index)); --(index))
/**
* drm_exec_until_all_locked - loop until all GEM objects are locked
