Hello, On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 08:59:13AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Op 04-09-13 05:41, Ben Skeggs schreef: > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Maarten Lankhorst > > <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Op 22-08-13 02:10, Ilia Mirkin schreef: > >>> The code expects non-VRAM mem nodes to have a pages list. If that's not > >>> set, it will do a null deref down the line. Warn on that condition and > >>> return an error. > >>> > >>> See https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64774 > >>> > >>> Reported-by: Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@xxxxxx> > >>> Tested-by: Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@xxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 3.8+ > >>> --- > >>> > >>> I don't exactly understand what's going on, but this is just a > >>> straightforward way to avoid a null deref that you see happens in the > >>> bug. I haven't figured out the root cause of this, but it's getting > >>> well into the "I have no idea how TTM works" space. However this seems > >>> like a bit of defensive programming -- nouveau_vm_map_sg will pass > >>> node->pages as a list down, which will be dereferenced by > >>> nvc0_vm_map_sg. Perhaps the other arguments should make that > >>> dereferencing not happen, but it definitely was happening here, as you > >>> can see in the bug. > >>> > >>> Ben/Maarten, I'll let you judge whether this check is appropriate, > >>> since like I hope I was able to convey above, I'm just not really sure :) > >> Not it really isn't appropriate.. > >> > >> You'd have to call call nouveau_vm_map_sg_table instead, the only place that doesn't handle that correctly > >> is where it's not expected to be called. > >> > >> Here, have a completely untested patch to fix things... > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_display.c > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_display.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_display.c > >> @@ -138,17 +143,26 @@ nouveau_user_framebuffer_create(struct drm_device *dev, > >> { > >> struct nouveau_framebuffer *nouveau_fb; > >> struct drm_gem_object *gem; > >> + struct nouveau_bo *nvbo; > >> int ret = -ENOMEM; > >> > >> gem = drm_gem_object_lookup(dev, file_priv, mode_cmd->handles[0]); > >> if (!gem) > >> return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT); > >> > >> + nvbo = nouveau_gem_object(gem); > >> + if (!(nvbo->valid_domains & NOUVEAU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM)) { > >> + nv_warn(nouveau_drm(dev), "Trying to create a fb in vram with" > >> + " valid_domains=%08x\n", nvbo->valid_domains); > >> + ret = -EINVAL; > >> + goto err_unref; > >> + } > >> + > > Definitely the right idea, we can't handle this case right now. > > However, we may someday want/need to be able to scan out of system > > memory, so this is the wrong place. > > > > I suspect the correct thing to do (which'll also handle the > > "defensive" part) is to bail in nouveau_bo_move() on attempts to move > > a DMA-BUF backed object into VRAM. > > > > Sound OK? > > > If it has a WARN_ON or something that would be ok, I didn't find any other places that attempt to move buffers to VRAM though, so it's probably harmless. > Ben/Maarten: Are you guys planning to take a look at this and submit another patch, or.. ? I tested the two earlier patches from this thread, and they both fixed the problem (hard kernel crash). I'm hoping this bug could be finally solved in the kernel.. Thanks, -- Pasi _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel