On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:21:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > If we make sure we grab a strong reference to each object as we dump it, > we can reduce the locks outside of our iterators to an rcu_read_lock. > > This should prevent errors like: > [ 2138.371911] BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in per_file_stats+0x43/0x380 [i915] > [ 2138.371924] Read of size 8 at addr ffff888223651000 by task cat/8293 > > [ 2138.371947] CPU: 0 PID: 8293 Comm: cat Not tainted 5.3.0-rc6-CI-Custom_4352+ #1 > [ 2138.371953] Hardware name: To Be Filled By O.E.M. To Be Filled By O.E.M./J4205-ITX, BIOS P1.40 07/14/2017 > [ 2138.371959] Call Trace: > [ 2138.371974] dump_stack+0x7c/0xbb > [ 2138.372099] ? per_file_stats+0x43/0x380 [i915] > [ 2138.372108] print_address_description+0x73/0x3a0 > [ 2138.372231] ? per_file_stats+0x43/0x380 [i915] > [ 2138.372352] ? per_file_stats+0x43/0x380 [i915] > [ 2138.372362] __kasan_report+0x14e/0x192 > [ 2138.372489] ? per_file_stats+0x43/0x380 [i915] > [ 2138.372502] kasan_report+0xe/0x20 > [ 2138.372625] per_file_stats+0x43/0x380 [i915] > [ 2138.372751] ? i915_panel_show+0x110/0x110 [i915] > [ 2138.372761] idr_for_each+0xa7/0x160 > [ 2138.372773] ? idr_get_next_ul+0x110/0x110 > [ 2138.372782] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x10a/0x1d0 > [ 2138.372923] print_context_stats+0x264/0x510 [i915] > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Tested-by: David Weinehall <david.weinehall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 10 ++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > index 9798f27a697a..708855e051b5 100644 [ ... ] > } > @@ -328,9 +334,9 @@ static void print_context_stats(struct seq_file *m, > struct task_struct *task; > char name[80]; > > - spin_lock(&file->table_lock); > + rcu_read_lock(); > idr_for_each(&file->object_idr, per_file_stats, &stats); > - spin_unlock(&file->table_lock); > + rcu_read_unlock(); > For my education - is it indeed possible and valid to replace spin_lock() with rcu_read_lock() to prevent list manipulation for a list used by idr_for_each(), even if that list is otherwise manipulated under the spinlock ? Background: we are seeing a crash with the following call trace. [ 1016.651593] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000000 ... [ 1016.651693] Call Trace: [ 1016.651703] idr_for_each+0x8a/0xe8 [ 1016.651711] i915_gem_object_info+0x2a3/0x3eb [ 1016.651720] seq_read+0x162/0x3ca [ 1016.651727] full_proxy_read+0x5b/0x8d [ 1016.651733] __vfs_read+0x45/0x1bb [ 1016.651741] vfs_read+0xc9/0x15e [ 1016.651746] ksys_read+0x7e/0xde [ 1016.651752] do_syscall_64+0x54/0x68 [ 1016.651758] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 I have not tried to track down what exactly is NULL in this case. Before spending more time on it, I'd like to understand the above change a little better. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
