On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:55:32PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 02:45:29PM -0800, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
> > Fences are creted/checked before the pm ref is taken, so if we jump to
> > pre_mutex_err we will uncorrectly call intel_runtime_pm_put.
> >
> > Fixes: fec0445caa27 (drm/i915: Support explicit fencing for execbuf)
> > Testcase: igt/gem_exec_params
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Sigh. The tree I was using has this:
>
> if (args->flags & I915_EXEC_FENCE_IN) {
> in_fence = sync_file_get_fence(lower_32_bits(args->rsvd2));
> if (!in_fence)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> if (args->flags & I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT) {
> out_fence_fd = get_unused_fd_flags(O_CLOEXEC);
> if (out_fence_fd < 0) {
> ret = out_fence_fd;
> goto err_in_fence;
> }
> }
>
> ...
>
> err_unlock:
> mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> err_rpm:
> intel_runtime_pm_put(eb.i915);
> eb_destroy(&eb);
> if (out_fence_fd != -1)
> put_unused_fd(out_fence_fd);
> err_in_fence:
> dma_fence_put(in_fence);
> return ret;
> }
>
> Transforming the unwind sequence to match would be appreciated.
Just in case I wasn't clear, just do the unwind gotos for the out_fence,
i.e add err_in_fence:
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
