On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:56:38PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:51:14 +0000,
> Chris Wilson wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 11:56:42AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fops.c | 1 +
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fops.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fops.c
> > > index ed7bc68f7e87..a82dc28d54f3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fops.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fops.c
> > > @@ -525,6 +525,7 @@ ssize_t drm_read(struct file *filp, char __user *buffer,
> > > if (copy_to_user(buffer + total,
> > > e->event, e->event->length)) {
> > > total = -EFAULT;
> > > + e->destroy(e);
> >
> > We shouldn't just be throwing away the event here, but put the event
> > back at the front of the queue. Poses an interesting race issue. Seems
> > like we want to hold the spinlock until the copy is complete so that we
> > can fix up the failure correctly.
>
> Yeah, I thought of it while writing this, but as a starter, I tried
> the simpler one. (And I didn't realize your comment referring to the
> already existing fix in kernel, sorry!)
>
> The problem to hold the spinlock for the whole is that you can't it
> with copy_to_user(). So it'd be a bit tricky.
We can use access_ok(VERFIY_WRITE) and then copy_to_user_inatomic().
Doable with a bit of code rearrangement.
> And, why not using event_wait.lock instead of the extra event_lock?
> Then we can use wait_event_lock_*() variant that covers more race
> between dequeuing and wait_event.
The tricky part would appear to be then protecting
dev->vblank_event_list. That looks like it could be an RCU list instead?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
