On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 13:25, Maarten Lankhorst
<maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 09-12-2021 14:05, Matthew Auld wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 13:58, Maarten Lankhorst
> > <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> We want to remove more members of i915_vma, which requires the locking to be
> >> held more often.
> >>
> >> Start requiring gem object lock for i915_vma_unbind, as it's one of the
> >> callers that may unpin pages.
> >>
> >> Some special care is needed when evicting, because the last reference to the
> >> object may be held by the VMA, so after __i915_vma_unbind, vma may be garbage,
> >> and we need to cache vma->obj before unlocking.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> > <snip>
> >
> >> @@ -129,22 +129,47 @@ void i915_ggtt_suspend_vm(struct i915_address_space *vm)
> >>
> >> drm_WARN_ON(&vm->i915->drm, !vm->is_ggtt && !vm->is_dpt);
> >>
> >> +retry:
> >> + i915_gem_drain_freed_objects(vm->i915);
> >> +
> >> mutex_lock(&vm->mutex);
> >>
> >> /* Skip rewriting PTE on VMA unbind. */
> >> open = atomic_xchg(&vm->open, 0);
> >>
> >> list_for_each_entry_safe(vma, vn, &vm->bound_list, vm_link) {
> >> + struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj = vma->obj;
> >> +
> >> GEM_BUG_ON(!drm_mm_node_allocated(&vma->node));
> >> +
> >> i915_vma_wait_for_bind(vma);
> >>
> >> - if (i915_vma_is_pinned(vma))
> >> + if (i915_vma_is_pinned(vma) || !i915_vma_is_bound(vma, I915_VMA_GLOBAL_BIND))
> >> continue;
> >>
> >> - if (!i915_vma_is_bound(vma, I915_VMA_GLOBAL_BIND)) {
> >> - __i915_vma_evict(vma);
> >> - drm_mm_remove_node(&vma->node);
> >> + /* unlikely to race when GPU is idle, so no worry about slowpath.. */
> >> + if (!i915_gem_object_trylock(obj, NULL)) {
> >> + atomic_set(&vm->open, open);
> > Does this need a comment about barriers?
> Not sure, it's guarded by vm->mutex.
> >> +
> >> + i915_gem_object_get(obj);
> > Should this not be kref_get_unless_zero? Assuming the vm->mutex is the
> > only thing keeping the object alive here, won't this lead to potential
> > uaf/double-free or something? Also should we not plonk this before the
> > trylock? Or maybe I'm missing something here?
>
> Normally you're correct, this is normally the case, but we drain freed objects and this path should only be run during s/r, at which point userspace should be dead, GPU idle, and we just drained all freed objects above.
>
> It would be a bug if we still found a dead object, as nothing should be running.
Hmm, Ok. So why do we expect the trylock to ever fail here? Who else
can grab it at this stage?
>
> >> + mutex_unlock(&vm->mutex);
> >> +
> >> + i915_gem_object_lock(obj, NULL);
> >> + open = i915_vma_unbind(vma);
> >> + i915_gem_object_unlock(obj);
> >> +
> >> + GEM_WARN_ON(open);
> >> +
> >> + i915_gem_object_put(obj);
> >> + goto retry;
> >> }
> >> +
> >> + i915_vma_wait_for_bind(vma);
> > We also call wait_for_bind above, is that intentional?
>
> Should be harmless, but first one should probably be removed. :)
>
