Re: [PATCH] tests/gem_userptr_blits: Race between object creation and multi-threaded mm ops

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

 




On 07/14/2014 11:34 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:03:26AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>

Userptr v23 was not thread safe against memory map operations and object
creation from separate threads. MMU notifier callback would get triggered
on a partially constructed object causing a NULL pointer dereference.

This test excercises that path a bit. In my testing it would trigger it
every time and easily, but unfortunately a test pass here does not guarantee
the absence of the race.

Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  tests/Makefile.am         |  2 ++
  tests/gem_userptr_blits.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tests/Makefile.am b/tests/Makefile.am
index 2878624..e207509 100644
--- a/tests/Makefile.am
+++ b/tests/Makefile.am
@@ -65,6 +65,8 @@ prime_self_import_CFLAGS = $(AM_CFLAGS) $(THREAD_CFLAGS)
  prime_self_import_LDADD = $(LDADD) -lpthread
  gen7_forcewake_mt_CFLAGS = $(AM_CFLAGS) $(THREAD_CFLAGS)
  gen7_forcewake_mt_LDADD = $(LDADD) -lpthread
+gem_userptr_blits_CFLAGS = $(AM_CFLAGS) $(THREAD_CFLAGS)
+gem_userptr_blits_LDADD = $(LDADD) -lpthread

  gem_wait_render_timeout_LDADD = $(LDADD) -lrt
  kms_flip_LDADD = $(LDADD) -lrt -lpthread
diff --git a/tests/gem_userptr_blits.c b/tests/gem_userptr_blits.c
index 2eb127f..0213868 100644
--- a/tests/gem_userptr_blits.c
+++ b/tests/gem_userptr_blits.c
@@ -47,6 +47,7 @@
  #include <sys/time.h>
  #include <sys/mman.h>
  #include <signal.h>
+#include <pthread.h>

  #include "drm.h"
  #include "i915_drm.h"
@@ -1107,6 +1108,56 @@ static int test_unmap_cycles(int fd, int expected)
  	return 0;
  }

+static volatile int stop_mm_stress_thread;

+static void *mm_stress_thread(void *data)
+{
+        void *ptr;
+        int ret;
+
+        while (!stop_mm_stress_thread) {
+		ptr = mmap(NULL, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
+				MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
+		assert(ptr != MAP_FAILED);
+		ret = munmap(ptr, PAGE_SIZE);
+		assert(ret == 0);
+        }
+
+        return NULL;
+}
+
+static int test_stress_mm(int fd)
+{
+	int ret;
+	pthread_t t;
+	unsigned int loops = 100000;
+	uint32_t handle;
+	void *ptr;
+
+	assert(posix_memalign(&ptr, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE) == 0);
+
+	ret = pthread_create(&t, NULL, mm_stress_thread, NULL);
+	assert(ret == 0);
+
+	while (loops--) {
+		ret = gem_userptr(fd, ptr, PAGE_SIZE, 0, &handle);
+		assert(ret == 0);
+
+		gem_close(fd, handle);
+	}
+
+	stop_mm_stress_thread = 1;
+
+	free(ptr);
+
+	ret = pthread_cancel(t);

You don't have any cancellation points in the loop. (mmap may or may not
be, it is not required to be.)

But rather than use a global, just pass a pointer to a local struct.

It doesn't need both a cancellation point and a flag. Should I just add pthread_testcancel in the loop and not have any flag at all?

Oh, and igt_assert. But kill the asserts in mm_stress_thread() first.

Why remove completely? My thinking was to use assert vs igt_assert to distinguish between assumptions about system behaviour, and igt_assert for assertions about tested functionality.

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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux