Re: [PATCH 6/8] drm/i915/gt: Fix memory leaks in per-gt sysfs

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

 





On 10.05.2022 11:48, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:

On 10/05/2022 10:39, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
On 10.05.2022 10:18, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:

On 10/05/2022 08:58, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
Hi Tvrtko,

On 10.05.2022 09:28, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:

On 29/04/2022 20:56, Ashutosh Dixit wrote:
All kmalloc'd kobjects need a kobject_put() to free memory. For example in previous code, kobj_gt_release() never gets called. The requirement of
kobject_put() now results in a slightly different code organization.

v2: s/gtn/gt/ (Andi)

Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@xxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: b770bcfae9ad ("drm/i915/gt: create per-tile sysfs interface")
Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.c       |  1 +
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c | 29 ++++++++++--------------
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.h |  6 +----
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_types.h |  3 +++
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sysfs.c        |  2 ++
  5 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.c
index 92394f13b42f..9aede288eb86 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.c
@@ -785,6 +785,7 @@ void intel_gt_driver_unregister(struct intel_gt *gt)
  {
      intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
  +    intel_gt_sysfs_unregister(gt);
      intel_rps_driver_unregister(&gt->rps);
      intel_gsc_fini(&gt->gsc);
  diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c
index 8ec8bc660c8c..9e4ebf53379b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ bool is_object_gt(struct kobject *kobj)
    static struct intel_gt *kobj_to_gt(struct kobject *kobj)
  {
-    return container_of(kobj, struct kobj_gt, base)->gt;
+    return container_of(kobj, struct intel_gt, sysfs_gt);
  }
    struct intel_gt *intel_gt_sysfs_get_drvdata(struct device *dev,
@@ -72,9 +72,9 @@ static struct attribute *id_attrs[] = {
  };
  ATTRIBUTE_GROUPS(id);
  +/* A kobject needs a release() method even if it does nothing */
  static void kobj_gt_release(struct kobject *kobj)
  {
-    kfree(kobj);
  }
    static struct kobj_type kobj_gt_type = {
@@ -85,8 +85,6 @@ static struct kobj_type kobj_gt_type = {
    void intel_gt_sysfs_register(struct intel_gt *gt)
  {
-    struct kobj_gt *kg;
-
      /*
       * We need to make things right with the
       * ABI compatibility. The files were originally
@@ -98,25 +96,22 @@ void intel_gt_sysfs_register(struct intel_gt *gt)
      if (gt_is_root(gt))
          intel_gt_sysfs_pm_init(gt, gt_get_parent_obj(gt));
  -    kg = kzalloc(sizeof(*kg), GFP_KERNEL);
-    if (!kg)
+    /* init and xfer ownership to sysfs tree */
+    if (kobject_init_and_add(&gt->sysfs_gt, &kobj_gt_type,
+                 gt->i915->sysfs_gt, "gt%d", gt->info.id))

Was there closure/agreement on the matter of whether or not there is a potential race between "kfree(gt)" and sysfs access (last put from sysfs that is)? I've noticed Andrzej and Ashutosh were discussing it but did not read all the details.


Not really :)
IMO docs are against this practice, Ashutosh shows examples of this practice in code and according to his analysis it is safe. I gave up looking for contradictions :) Either it is OK, kobject is not fully shared object, docs are obsolete and needs update, either the patch is wrong. Anyway finally I tend to accept this solution, I failed to prove it is wrong :)

Like a question of whether hotunplug can be triggered while userspace is sitting in a sysfs hook? Final kfree then has to be delayed until userspace exists.

Btw where is the "kfree(gt)" for the tiles on the PCI remove path? I can't find it.. Do we have a leak?

intel_gt_tile_cleanup ?

Called from intel_gt_release_all, whose only caller is the failure path of i915_driver_probe. Feels like something is missing?

This is final proof this patch is safe - no kfree, no UAF :)

Apparently it is broken in internal branch as well.
Should I take care of it?

Regards
Andrzej



Regards,

Tvrtko




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

  Powered by Linux