On 9/14/23 14:58, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 14:36:23 +0300
> Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 9/14/23 11:27, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 10:50:32 +0300
>>> Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Which feature? That's not related to a specific feature, that's just
>>> how drm_gem_shmem_get_pages_sgt() works, it takes a pages ref that can
>>> only be released in drm_gem_shmem_free(), because sgt users are not
>>> refcounted and the sgt stays around until the GEM object is freed or
>>> its pages are evicted. The only valid cases we have at the moment are:
>>>
>>> - pages_use_count == 1 && sgt != NULL
>>> - pages_use_count == 0
>>>
>>> any other situations are buggy.
>>
>> sgt may belong to dma-buf for which pages_use_count=0, this can't be
>> done until sgt mess is sorted out
>
> No it can't, not in that path, because the code you're adding is in the
> if (!obj->import_branch) branch:
>
>
> if (obj->import_attach) {
> drm_prime_gem_destroy(obj, shmem->sgt);
> } else {
> ...
> // Your changes are here.
> ...
This branch is taken for the dma-buf in the prime import error code path. But yes, the pages_use_count=0 for the dma-buf and then it can be written as:
if (obj->import_attach) {
drm_prime_gem_destroy(obj, shmem->sgt);
} else {
drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, refcount_read(&shmem->vmap_use_count));
if (shmem->sgt && refcount_read(&shmem->pages_use_count)) {
dma_unmap_sgtable(obj->dev->dev, shmem->sgt,
DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL, 0);
sg_free_table(shmem->sgt);
kfree(shmem->sgt);
__drm_gem_shmem_put_pages(shmem);
}
drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, refcount_read(&shmem->pages_use_count));
Alright, I'll check if it works as expected for fixing the error code path bug for v17
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
