On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 11:34:35PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 11:11 PM Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On 6/7/19 3:55 PM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > > On 2019-06-07 15:40, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > >> On 6/7/19 2:47 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > >>> On 6/7/19 2:23 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > >>>> On 6/7/19 2:14 PM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > >>>>> On 2019-06-07 14:01, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 6/7/19 1:16 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Thank you for the patch.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 10:45:31AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> The __prepare_userptr() function made the incorrect assumption that if the
> > >>>>>>>> same user pointer was used as the last one for which memory was acquired, then
> > >>>>>>>> there was no need to re-acquire the memory. This assumption was never properly
> > >>>>>>>> tested, and after doing that it became clear that this was in fact wrong.
> > >>>>>>> Could you explain in the commit message why the assumption is not
> > >>>>>>> correct ?
> > >>>>>> You can free the memory, then allocate it again and you can get the same pointer,
> > >>>>>> even though it is not necessarily using the same physical pages for the memory
> > >>>>>> that the kernel is still using for it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Worse, you can free the memory, then allocate only half the memory you need and
> > >>>>>> get back the same pointer. vb2 wouldn't notice this. And it seems to work (since
> > >>>>>> the original mapping still remains), but this can corrupt userspace memory
> > >>>>>> causing the application to crash. It's not quite clear to me how the memory can
> > >>>>>> get corrupted. I don't know enough of those low-level mm internals to understand
> > >>>>>> the sequence of events.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I have test code for v4l2-compliance available if someone wants to test this.
> > >>>>> I'm interested, I would really like to know what happens in the mm
> > >>>>> subsystem in such case.
> > >>>> Here it is:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> diff --git a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-buffers.cpp b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-buffers.cpp
> > >>>> index be606e48..9abf41da 100644
> > >>>> --- a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-buffers.cpp
> > >>>> +++ b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-buffers.cpp
> > >>>> @@ -797,7 +797,7 @@ int testReadWrite(struct node *node)
> > >>>> return 0;
> > >>>> }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -static int captureBufs(struct node *node, const cv4l_queue &q,
> > >>>> +static int captureBufs(struct node *node, cv4l_queue &q,
> > >>>> const cv4l_queue &m2m_q, unsigned frame_count, int pollmode,
> > >>>> unsigned &capture_count)
> > >>>> {
> > >>>> @@ -962,6 +962,21 @@ static int captureBufs(struct node *node, const cv4l_queue &q,
> > >>>> buf.s_flags(V4L2_BUF_FLAG_REQUEST_FD);
> > >>>> buf.s_request_fd(buf_req_fds[req_idx]);
> > >>>> }
> > >>>> + if (v4l_type_is_capture(buf.g_type()) && q.g_memory() == V4L2_MEMORY_USERPTR) {
> > >>>> + printf("\nidx: %d", buf.g_index());
> > >>>> + for (unsigned p = 0; p < q.g_num_planes(); p++) {
> > >>>> + printf(" old buf[%d]: %p ", p, buf.g_userptr(p));
> > >>>> + fflush(stdout);
> > >>>> + free(buf.g_userptr(p));
> > >>>> + void *m = calloc(1, q.g_length(p)/2);
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> + fail_on_test(m == NULL);
> > >>>> + q.s_userptr(buf.g_index(), p, m);
> > >>>> + printf("new buf[%d]: %p", p, m);
> > >>>> + buf.s_userptr(m, p);
> > >>>> + }
> > >>>> + printf("\n");
> > >>>> + }
> > >>>> fail_on_test(buf.qbuf(node, q));
> > >>>> fail_on_test(buf.g_flags() & V4L2_BUF_FLAG_DONE);
> > >>>> if (buf.g_flags() & V4L2_BUF_FLAG_REQUEST_FD) {
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Load the vivid driver and just run 'v4l2-compliance -s10' and you'll see:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>> Streaming ioctls:
> > >>>> test read/write: OK
> > >>>> test blocking wait: OK
> > >>>> test MMAP (no poll): OK
> > >>>> test MMAP (select): OK
> > >>>> test MMAP (epoll): OK
> > >>>> Video Capture: Frame #000
> > >>>> idx: 0 old buf[0]: 0x7f71c6e7c010 new buf[0]: 0x7f71c6eb4010
> > >>>> Video Capture: Frame #001
> > >>>> idx: 1 old buf[0]: 0x7f71c6e0b010 new buf[0]: 0x7f71c6e7b010
> > >>>> Video Capture: Frame #002
> > >>>> idx: 0 old buf[0]: 0x7f71c6eb4010 free(): invalid pointer
> > >>>> Aborted
> > >>> To clarify: two full size buffers are allocated and queued (that happens in setupUserPtr()),
> > >>> then streaming starts and captureBufs is called which basically just calls dqbuf
> > >>> and qbuf.
> > >>>
> > >>> Tomasz pointed out that all the pointers in this log are actually different. That's
> > >>> correct, but here is a log where the old and new buf ptr are the same:
> > >>>
> > >>> Streaming ioctls:
> > >>> test read/write: OK
> > >>> test blocking wait: OK
> > >>> test MMAP (no poll): OK
> > >>> test MMAP (select): OK
> > >>> test MMAP (epoll): OK
> > >>> Video Capture: Frame #000
> > >>> idx: 0 old buf[0]: 0x7f1094e16010 new buf[0]: 0x7f1094e4e010
> > >>> Video Capture: Frame #001
> > >>> idx: 1 old buf[0]: 0x7f1094da5010 new buf[0]: 0x7f1094e15010
> > >>> Video Capture: Frame #002
> > >>> idx: 0 old buf[0]: 0x7f1094e4e010 new buf[0]: 0x7f1094e4e010
> > >>> Video Capture: Frame #003
> > >>> idx: 1 old buf[0]: 0x7f1094e15010 free(): invalid pointer
> > >>> Aborted
> > >>>
> > >>> It's weird that the first log fails that way: if the pointers are different,
> > >>> then vb2 will call get_userptr and it should discover that the buffer isn't
> > >>> large enough, causing qbuf to fail. That doesn't seem to happen.
> > >> I think that the reason for this corruption is that the memory pool used
> > >> by glibc is now large enough for vb2 to think it can map the full length
> > >> of the user pointer into memory, even though only the first half is actually
> > >> from the buffer that's allocated. When you capture a frame you just overwrite
> > >> a random part of the application's memory pool, causing this invalid pointer.
> > >>
> > >> But that's a matter of garbage in, garbage out. So that's not the issue here.
> > >>
> > >> The real question is what happens when you free the old buffer, allocate a
> > >> new buffer, end up with the same userptr, but it's using one or more different
> > >> pages for its memory compared to the mapping that the kernel uses.
> > >>
> > >> I managed to reproduce this with v4l2-ctl:
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/utils/v4l2-ctl/v4l2-ctl-streaming.cpp b/utils/v4l2-ctl/v4l2-ctl-streaming.cpp
> > >> index 28b2b3b9..8f2ed9b5 100644
> > >> --- a/utils/v4l2-ctl/v4l2-ctl-streaming.cpp
> > >> +++ b/utils/v4l2-ctl/v4l2-ctl-streaming.cpp
> > >> @@ -1422,6 +1422,24 @@ static int do_handle_cap(cv4l_fd &fd, cv4l_queue &q, FILE *fout, int *index,
> > >> * has the size that fits the old resolution and might not
> > >> * fit to the new one.
> > >> */
> > >> + if (q.g_memory() == V4L2_MEMORY_USERPTR) {
> > >> + printf("\nidx: %d", buf.g_index());
> > >> + for (unsigned p = 0; p < q.g_num_planes(); p++) {
> > >> + unsigned *pb = (unsigned *)buf.g_userptr(p);
> > >> + printf(" old buf[%d]: %p first pixel: 0x%x", p, buf.g_userptr(p), *pb);
> > >> + fflush(stdout);
> > >> + free(buf.g_userptr(p));
> > >> + void *m = calloc(1, q.g_length(p));
> > >> +
> > >> + if (m == NULL)
> > >> + return QUEUE_ERROR;
> > >> + q.s_userptr(buf.g_index(), p, m);
> > >> + if (m == buf.g_userptr(p))
> > >> + printf(" identical new buf");
> > >> + buf.s_userptr(m, p);
> > >> + }
> > >> + printf("\n");
> > >> + }
> > >> if (fd.qbuf(buf) && errno != EINVAL) {
> > >> fprintf(stderr, "%s: qbuf error\n", __func__);
> > >> return QUEUE_ERROR;
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Load vivid, setup a pure white test pattern:
> > >>
> > >> v4l2-ctl -c test_pattern=6
> > >>
> > >> Now run v4l2-ctl --stream-user and you'll see:
> > >>
> > >> idx: 0 old buf[0]: 0x7f91551cb010 first pixel: 0x80ea80ea identical new buf
> > >> <
> > >> idx: 1 old buf[0]: 0x7f915515a010 first pixel: 0x80ea80ea identical new buf
> > >> <
> > >> idx: 2 old buf[0]: 0x7f91550e9010 first pixel: 0x80ea80ea identical new buf
> > >> <
> > >> idx: 3 old buf[0]: 0x7f9155078010 first pixel: 0x80ea80ea identical new buf
> > >> <
> > >> idx: 0 old buf[0]: 0x7f91551cb010 first pixel: 0x0 identical new buf
> > >> <
> > >> idx: 1 old buf[0]: 0x7f915515a010 first pixel: 0x0 identical new buf
> > >> < 5.00 fps
> > >>
> > >> idx: 2 old buf[0]: 0x7f91550e9010 first pixel: 0x0 identical new buf
> > >> <
> > >> idx: 3 old buf[0]: 0x7f9155078010 first pixel: 0x0 identical new buf
> > >>
> > >> The first four dequeued buffers are filled with data, after that the
> > >> returned buffer is empty because vivid is actually writing to different
> > >> memory pages.
> > >>
> > >> With this patch the first pixel is always non-zero.
> > >
> > > Good catch. The question is weather we treat that as undefined behavior
> > > and keep the optimization for 'good applications' or assume that every
> > > broken userspace code has to be properly handled. The good thing is that
> > > there is still imho no security issue. The physical pages gathered by
> >
> > Yeah, that scared me for a bit, but it all looks secure.
> >
> > > vb2 in worst case belongs to noone else (vb2 is their last user, they
> > > are not yet returned to free pages pool).
> >
> > I see three options:
> >
> > 1) just always reacquire the buffer, and if anyone complains about it
> > being slower we point them towards DMABUF.
> >
> > 2) keep the current behavior, but document it.
> >
> > 3) as 2), but also add a new buffer flag that forces a reacquire of the
> > buffer. This could be valid for DMABUF as well. E.g.:
> >
> > V4L2_BUF_FLAG_REACQUIRE
> >
> > I'm leaning towards the third option since it won't slow down existing
> > implementations, yet if you do change the userptr every time, then you
> > can now force this to work safely.
> >
>
> I'd be for 1) or 3) as that would allow Chrome work on mainline.
I don't like 3) much, it makes the API and the implementation more
complex just to work around a problem with an API that should not be
used anymore. I'd go for 1), giving even more incentive to stop using
USERPTR.
> Also I believe there is still some bug when the pointers don't match,
> even if you don't free those pages. I guess some more testing that
> includes verifying the contents of previously dequeued buffers could
> show something.
>
> > >> I wonder if it isn't possible to just check the physical address of
> > >> the received user pointer with the physical address of the previous
> > >> user pointer. Or something like that. I'll dig around a bit more.
> > >
> > > Such check won't be so simple. Pages contiguous in the virtual memory
> > > won't map to pages contiguous in the physical memory, so you would need
> > > to check every single memory page. Make no sense. It is better to
> > > reacquire buffer on every queue operation. This indeed show how broken
> > > the USERPTR related part of v4l2 API is.
> >
> > OK, good to know. Then I'm not going to spend time on that.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
