Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915/gt: Do not allow setting ring size for legacy ring submission

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 21/06/2021 14:12, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:

On 21/06/2021 14:07, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 21-06-2021 om 14:52 schreef Tvrtko Ursulin:

On 21/06/2021 13:08, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:

I had some questions on the trybot mailing list, let me copy&paste..

On 21/06/2021 12:41, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
It doesn't work for legacy ring submission, and is in the best case
ignored.

Looks rejected instead of ignored:

static int set_ringsize(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
              struct drm_i915_gem_context_param *args)
{
      if (!HAS_LOGICAL_RING_CONTEXTS(ctx->i915))
          return -ENODEV;

In the worst case we end up freeing engine->legacy.ring for all other
active engines, resulting in a use-after-free.

Worst case is cloning because ring_context_alloc is not taking a reference to engine->legacy.ring, or something else?

No can't be that, it was my incomplete analysis last week. Since ring_context_destroy does not actually free the legacy ring I don't see any use after free paths.

Regards,

Hmm, it gets stuck inside intel_context_set_ring_size when cloning engines..

I guess it can't happen in practice, just the code introduces the race by preallocating
inside intel_context_lock_pinned()..

"The code" being the rest of your series? Haven't looked in there, but can't find a problem in upstream. Since as you say, copy_ring_size will run but intel_context_set_ring_size will not free-and-allocate old/new ring since cloned context does not have a state allocated yet.

P.S. Putting a HAS_LOGICAL_RING_CONTEXTS check in copy_ring_size would be a bit unfortunate because layering is a bit broken at the moment and that wouldn't make it better.

To clarify my thinking: At the moment allocating the ring is responsibility of a backend specific hook. Apart from the generic intel_context_set_ring_size which breaks that by allocating in the layer above the backend. So proper fix could be to introduce backend specific hooks for ring allocation/freeing.

*If* you need to allocate the state so early.. not sure about that. I'd first need to understand why. If you say it is a race then it was all accidental?

Regards,

Tvrtko

Regards,

Tvrtko

copy_ring_size() should only be called for HAS_LOGICAL_RING_CONTEXTS().
I guess that makes this patch obsolete. It can safely be dropped from the series, I think I should probably introduce a check to only set the size when HAS_LOGICAL_RING_CONTEXTS
evaluates to true, but that wouldn't block the rest of this series.

~Maarten

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux