On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:28:21AM +0200, Christian König wrote: > Am 07.08.19 um 01:15 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe: > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > radeon is using a device global hash table to track what mmu_notifiers > > have been registered on struct mm. This is better served with the new > > get/put scheme instead. > > > > radeon has a bug where it was not blocking notifier release() until all > > the BO's had been invalidated. This could result in a use after free of > > pages the BOs. This is tied into a second bug where radeon left the > > notifiers running endlessly even once the interval tree became > > empty. This could result in a use after free with module unload. > > > > Both are fixed by changing the lifetime model, the BOs exist in the > > interval tree with their natural lifetimes independent of the mm_struct > > lifetime using the get/put scheme. The release runs synchronously and just > > does invalidate_start across the entire interval tree to create the > > required DMA fence. > > > > Additions to the interval tree after release are already impossible as > > only current->mm is used during the add. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> Thanks! > But I'm wondering if we shouldn't completely drop radeon userptr support. > It's just to buggy, I would not object :) Jason _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
