On 04/02/2020 15:24, Chris Wilson wrote:
No engine can be missed when verifying that a rogue user cannot cause a
denial-of-service with nohangcheck.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/i915/gem_ctx_exec.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_exec.c b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_exec.c
index b1ae65774..2a16357a4 100644
--- a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_exec.c
+++ b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_exec.c
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
#include "igt_dummyload.h"
#include "igt_sysfs.h"
+#include "sw_sync.h"
IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Test context batch buffer execution.");
@@ -203,9 +204,9 @@ static bool __enable_hangcheck(int dir, bool state)
static void nohangcheck_hostile(int i915)
{
- int64_t timeout = NSEC_PER_SEC / 2;
- igt_spin_t *spin;
+ int64_t timeout = MSEC_PER_SEC / 2;
igt_hang_t hang;
+ int fence = -1;
uint32_t ctx;
int err = 0;
int dir;
@@ -223,16 +224,35 @@ static void nohangcheck_hostile(int i915)
igt_require(__enable_hangcheck(dir, false));
- spin = igt_spin_new(i915, ctx, .flags = IGT_SPIN_NO_PREEMPTION);
+ for_each_physical_engine(e, i915) {
I think we shouldn't add more of for_each_physical_engine, but to use
new style need to think where we are with the overall design of
iterators and stuff.
+ igt_spin_t *spin;
+
+ spin = igt_spin_new(i915, ctx,
+ .engine = eb_ring(e),
+ .flags = (IGT_SPIN_NO_PREEMPTION |
+ IGT_SPIN_FENCE_OUT));
+
+ igt_assert(spin->out_fence != -1);
>= 0 would be more correct. Or your beloved igt_assert_fd. ;)
+ if (fence < 0) {
+ fence = spin->out_fence;
+ spin->out_fence = -1;
+ } else {
+ int new;
+
+ new = sync_fence_merge(fence, spin->out_fence);
+ close(fence);
+
+ fence = new;
+ }
+ }
gem_context_destroy(i915, ctx);
+ igt_assert(fence != -1);
- if (gem_wait(i915, spin->handle, &timeout)) {
+ if (sync_fence_wait(fence, timeout)) {
igt_debugfs_dump(i915, "i915_engine_info");
err = -ETIME;
}
- igt_spin_free(i915, spin);
Could keep last for completeness.
-
__enable_hangcheck(dir, true);
gem_quiescent_gpu(i915);
igt_disallow_hang(i915, hang);
@@ -240,6 +260,9 @@ static void nohangcheck_hostile(int i915)
igt_assert_f(err == 0,
"Hostile unpreemptable context was not cancelled immediately upon closure\n");
+ igt_assert_eq(sync_fence_status(fence), -EIO);
With composite fences I have a feeling -EIO could mean any fence
signalled -EIO and we want to check all have, no? At least I hope both
my assumptions are correct.
+ close(fence);
+
close(dir);
}
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
