On 24/03/2024 10:15, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
commit e531fdb5cd5e ("dma-buf/sw_sync: Avoid recursive lock during fence
signal") fixed a recursive locking when a signal callback released a fence.
It did it by taking an extra reference while traversing it on the list and
holding the timeline lock.
However, this is racy and may end up adding to a kref that is 0, triggering
a well deserved warning, as later that reference would be put again.
CPU 0 CPU 1
sync_file_release sync_timeline_signal
dma_fence_put
timeline_fence_release
spin_lock_irq(&obj->lock)
dma_fence_get(&pt->base)
spin_lock_irqsave(fence->lock, flags)
As shown above, it is possible for the last reference to be dropped, but
sync_timeline_signal take the lock before timeline_fence_release, which
will lead to a 0->1 kref transition, which is not allowed.
This is because there is still a pointer to the fence object in the list,
which should be accounted as a reference.
In previous discussions about this [3], it was called out that keeping such
a reference was not a good idea because the fence also holds a reference to
the timeline, hence leading to a loop. However, accounting for that
reference doesn't change that the loop already exists. And userspace holds
references in the form of file descriptors, so it is still possible to
avoid potential memory leaks.
This fix also avoids other issues. The nested locking is still possible to
trigger when closing the timeline, as sw_sync_debugfs_release also calls
dma_fence_signal_locked while holding the lock. By holding a reference and
releasing it only after doing the signal, that nested locking is avoided.
There are a few quirks about the reference counting here, though.
In the simple case when sync_pt_create adds a new fence to the list, it
returns with 2 references instead of 1. That is dealt with as
sw_sync_ioctl_create_fence always puts a reference after calling
sync_file_create. That is necessary for multiple reasons.
One is that it takes care of the error case when sync_file_create fails.
The extra reference is put, while the fence is still held on the list, so
its last reference will be put when it is removed from the list either in
sync_timeline_signal or sw_sync_debugfs_release.
So any fences where sync_file_create failed linger around until
sw_sync_debugfs_release? Okay-ish I guess since it is a pathological case.
It also avoids the race when a signal may come in between sync_pt_create
and sync_file_create as the lock is dropped. If that happens, the fence
will be removed from the list, but a reference will still be kept as
sync_file_create takes a reference.
Then, there is the case when a fence with the given seqno already exists.
sync_pt_create returns with an extra reference to it, that we later put.
Similar reasoning can be applied here. That one extra reference is
necessary to avoid a race with signaling (and release), and we later put
that extra reference.
Finally, there is the case when the fence is already signaled and not added
to the list. In such case, sync_pt_create must return with a single
reference as this fence has not been added to the timeline list. It will
either be freed in case sync_file_create fails or the file will keep its
reference, which is later put when the file is released.
This is based on Chris Wilson attempt [2] to fix recursive locking during
timeline signal. Hence, their signoff.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200714154102.450826-1-bas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200715100432.13928-2-chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230817213729.110087-1-robdclark@xxxxxxxxx/T/ [3]
Fixes: e531fdb5cd5e ("dma-buf/sw_sync: Avoid recursive lock during fence signal")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Bas Nieuwenhuizen <bas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++-----------------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c b/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c
index c353029789cf..83b624ac4faa 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c
@@ -151,16 +151,7 @@ static const char *timeline_fence_get_timeline_name(struct dma_fence *fence)
static void timeline_fence_release(struct dma_fence *fence)
{
- struct sync_pt *pt = dma_fence_to_sync_pt(fence);
struct sync_timeline *parent = dma_fence_parent(fence);
- unsigned long flags;
-
- spin_lock_irqsave(fence->lock, flags);
- if (!list_empty(&pt->link)) {
- list_del(&pt->link);
- rb_erase(&pt->node, &parent->pt_tree);
- }
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(fence->lock, flags);
sync_timeline_put(parent);
dma_fence_free(fence);
@@ -229,7 +220,6 @@ static const struct dma_fence_ops timeline_fence_ops = {
*/
static void sync_timeline_signal(struct sync_timeline *obj, unsigned int inc)
{
- LIST_HEAD(signalled);
struct sync_pt *pt, *next;
trace_sync_timeline(obj);
@@ -242,20 +232,14 @@ static void sync_timeline_signal(struct sync_timeline *obj, unsigned int inc)
if (!timeline_fence_signaled(&pt->base))
break;
- dma_fence_get(&pt->base);
-
- list_move_tail(&pt->link, &signalled);
+ list_del(&pt->link);
rb_erase(&pt->node, &obj->pt_tree);
dma_fence_signal_locked(&pt->base);
+ dma_fence_put(&pt->base);
}
spin_unlock_irq(&obj->lock);
-
- list_for_each_entry_safe(pt, next, &signalled, link) {
- list_del_init(&pt->link);
- dma_fence_put(&pt->base);
- }
}
/**
@@ -299,13 +283,11 @@ static struct sync_pt *sync_pt_create(struct sync_timeline *obj,
} else if (cmp < 0) {
p = &parent->rb_left;
} else {
- if (dma_fence_get_rcu(&other->base)) {
- sync_timeline_put(obj);
- kfree(pt);
- pt = other;
- goto unlock;
- }
- p = &parent->rb_left;
+ /* This is later put in sw_sync_ioctl_create_fence. */
+ dma_fence_get(&other->base);
+ dma_fence_put(&pt->base);
Couldn't this have stayed a direct kfree given pt is not exposed to
anywhere at this point, nor it will be? I know there would need to be an
explicit sync_timeline_put(obj) too, as before, but perhaps that would
read more obvious.
+ pt = other;
+ goto unlock;
}
}
rb_link_node(&pt->node, parent, p);
@@ -314,6 +296,8 @@ static struct sync_pt *sync_pt_create(struct sync_timeline *obj,
parent = rb_next(&pt->node);
list_add_tail(&pt->link,
parent ? &rb_entry(parent, typeof(*pt), node)->link : &obj->pt_list);
+ /* Adding to the list requires a reference. */
+ dma_fence_get(&pt->base);
}
unlock:
spin_unlock_irq(&obj->lock);
@@ -354,6 +338,7 @@ static int sw_sync_debugfs_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
list_for_each_entry_safe(pt, next, &obj->pt_list, link) {
dma_fence_set_error(&pt->base, -ENOENT);
dma_fence_signal_locked(&pt->base);
+ dma_fence_put(&pt->base);
Can't this be dropping one reference too many?
There is one reference for being on the list, and one for the owning
file. Or there is another one?
If there isn't, dma_fence_signal_locked will drop the one for being on
the list, and then we drop one more here. Is it the last one? Shouldn't
sync_file_release still own one?
Regards,
Tvrtko
}
spin_unlock_irq(&obj->lock);
@@ -386,7 +371,14 @@ static long sw_sync_ioctl_create_fence(struct sync_timeline *obj,
}
sync_file = sync_file_create(&pt->base);
+
+ /*
+ * Puts the extra reference returned by sync_pt_create. This is necessary
+ * to avoid a race where the fence is signaled, removed from the list and
+ * released right after sync_pt_create releases the lock and returns.
+ */
dma_fence_put(&pt->base);
+
if (!sync_file) {
err = -ENOMEM;
goto err;
