On 9/14/23 10:36, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 07:02:52 +0300
> Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/23 10:48, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 03:56:14 +0300
>>> Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/5/23 11:03, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>>>> * But
>>>>>> + * acquiring the obj lock in drm_gem_shmem_release_pages_locked() can
>>>>>> + * cause a locking order inversion between reservation_ww_class_mutex
>>>>>> + * and fs_reclaim.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * This deadlock is not actually possible, because no one should
>>>>>> + * be already holding the lock when drm_gem_shmem_free() is called.
>>>>>> + * Unfortunately lockdep is not aware of this detail. So when the
>>>>>> + * refcount drops to zero, don't touch the reservation lock.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + if (shmem->got_pages_sgt &&
>>>>>> + refcount_dec_and_test(&shmem->pages_use_count)) {
>>>>>> + drm_gem_shmem_do_release_pages_locked(shmem);
>>>>>> + shmem->got_pages_sgt = false;
>>>>>> }
>>>>> Leaking memory is the right thing to do if pages_use_count > 1 (it's
>>>>> better to leak than having someone access memory it no longer owns), but
>>>>> I think it's worth mentioning in the above comment.
>>>>
>>>> It's unlikely that it will be only a leak without a following up
>>>> use-after-free. Neither is acceptable.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily, if you have a page leak, it could be that the GPU has
>>> access to those pages, but doesn't need the GEM object anymore
>>> (pages are mapped by the iommu, which doesn't need shmem->sgt or
>>> shmem->pages after the mapping is created). Without a WARN_ON(), this
>>> can go unnoticed and lead to memory corruptions/information leaks.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The drm_gem_shmem_free() could be changed such that kernel won't blow up
>>>> on a refcnt bug, but that's not worthwhile doing because drivers
>>>> shouldn't have silly bugs.
>>>
>>> We definitely don't want to fix that, but we want to complain loudly
>>> (WARN_ON()), and make sure the risk is limited (preventing memory from
>>> being re-assigned to someone else by not freeing it).
>>
>> That's what the code did and continues to do here. Not exactly sure what
>> you're trying to say. I'm going to relocate the comment in v17 to
>> put_pages(), we can continue discussing it there if I'm missing yours point.
>>
>
> I'm just saying it would be worth mentioning that we're intentionally
> leaking memory if shmem->pages_use_count > 1. Something like:
>
> /**
> * shmem->pages_use_count should be 1 when ->sgt != NULL and
> * zero otherwise. If some users still hold a pages reference
> * that's a bug, and we intentionally leak the pages so they
> * can't be re-allocated to someone else while the GPU/CPU
> * still have access to it.
> */
> drm_WARN_ON(drm,
> refcount_read(&shmem->pages_use_count) == (shmem->sgt ? 1 : 0));
> if (shmem->sgt && refcount_dec_and_test(&shmem->pages_use_count))
> drm_gem_shmem_free_pages(shmem);
That may be acceptable, but only once there will a driver using this
feature.
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
