Le mercredi 12 juin 2019 à 11:17 +0300, Laurent Pinchart a écrit :
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 08:09:13PM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> > Le mardi 11 juin 2019 à 13:24 +0300, Laurent Pinchart a écrit :
> > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 03:38:39PM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> > > > Le vendredi 07 juin 2019 à 16:58 +0300, Laurent Pinchart a écrit :
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 03:55:05PM +0200, 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given how long we've been saying that USERPTR should be replaced by
> > > > > DMABUF, I would consider that any userspace code using USERPTR is broken
> > > > > :-) One could however question whether we were effective at getting that
> > > > > message across...
> > > >
> > > > Just a reminder that DMABuf is not a replacement for USERPTR. It only
> > > > cover a subset in absence of an allocater for it. There is no clean way
> > > > to allocate a DMAbuf. Notably, memfds (which could have filled the gap)
> > > > are not DMABuf, even though they are they are similar to the buffers
> > > > allocated by vivid or uvcvideo.
> > >
> > > You always have the option to use MMAP to allocate buffers on the V4L2
> > > device. What prevents you from doing so and forces usage of USERPTR ?
> >
> > If you use MMAP on one v4l2 device, how do you import that into another
> > v4l2 device ?
>
> You can simply export the MMAP buffers on the V4L2 device that has
> allocated them, and use DMABUF on the importing device.
>
> > Now, let's say your source is not a v4l2 device, and uses virtual
> > memory, how does DMABuf replaces such a use case if you want to avoid
> > copies and you know your HW can support fast usage of these randomly
> > allocated buffers ?
>
> For this use case you should allocate buffers on the sink, mmap them,
> and use the mapped memory on the source side. I agree that not all
> sources may support this mode of operation, but that's a design issue
> with the source. If we had a dmabuf allocator your problem wouldn't be
> solved, as the source would still need to be modified to use it.
I don't think any of this reflection covers the surface of the
restrictions that V4L2 combined queue/allocation impose on userspace.
One of our very common scenarios requires to capture from one source,
and zero-copy that toward multiple sink. One source could be USB driven
(non v4l2), or network socket. Allocating from one random sink isn't
really working, in fact it would lead to ebusy prior to the orphaning
mechanism that was added recently. Since as long as one buffer of a
device is still active, the driver (and the HW behind) cannot be used
anymore.
Over your N sinks, you maybe have zero-copy for some of them, even if
it's foreign allocation, while others will just fallback to mmap/copy,
and that's could be all right for a specific application. But as the
source does not always have a "dmabuf", USERPTR remains the only option
one could try. I don't know how memfd works, but maybe memfd should be
a memory type in replacement to USERPTR ? I'm really not sure what the
replacement, but I'm quite clear that there is no zero-copy replacement
for it atm.
>
> > > > > > The good thing is that
> > > > > > there is still imho no security issue. The physical pages gathered by
> > > > > > vb2 in worst case belongs to noone else (vb2 is their last user, they
> > > > > > are not yet returned to free pages pool).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
