Re: [2/2] drm/shmem-helper: Avoid vm_open error paths

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

 



On 11/29/22 12:47, Rob Clark wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:32 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:02:42PM -0800, Rob Clark wrote:
From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

vm_open() is not allowed to fail.  Fortunately we are guaranteed that
the pages are already pinned, and only need to increment the refcnt.  So
just increment it directly.

I don't know anything about drm or gem, but I am wondering _how_
this would be guaranteed. Would it be through the pin function ?
Just wondering, because that function does not seem to be mandatory.

We've pinned the pages already in mmap.. vm->open() is perhaps not the
best name for the callback function, but it is called for copying an
existing vma into a new process (and for some other cases which do not
apply here because VM_DONTEXPAND).

(Other drivers pin pages in the fault handler, where there is actually
potential to return an error, but that change was a bit more like
re-writing shmem helper ;-))


Maybe add a bit of that (where the pinning happened) to the commit description
and to the patch itself ?

BR,
-R


Fixes: 2194a63a818d ("drm: Add library for shmem backed GEM objects")
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c | 14 +++++++++++---
  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
index 110a9eac2af8..9885ba64127f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
@@ -571,12 +571,20 @@ static void drm_gem_shmem_vm_open(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
  {
       struct drm_gem_object *obj = vma->vm_private_data;
       struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem = to_drm_gem_shmem_obj(obj);
-     int ret;

       WARN_ON(shmem->base.import_attach);

-     ret = drm_gem_shmem_get_pages(shmem);
-     WARN_ON_ONCE(ret != 0);
+     mutex_lock(&shmem->pages_lock);
+
+     /*
+      * We should have already pinned the pages, vm_open() just grabs

should or guaranteed ? This sounds a bit weaker than the commit
description.

like ... the pages were already pinned in (mmap function).

+      * an additional reference for the new mm the vma is getting
+      * copied into.
+      */
+     WARN_ON_ONCE(!shmem->pages_use_count);

If the code can't be trusted and still needs the warning, how about
something like the following ?

	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!shmem->pages_use_count)) {
		mutex_unlock(&shmem->pages_lock);
		return;
	}

Thanks,
Guenter

+
+     shmem->pages_use_count++;
+     mutex_unlock(&shmem->pages_lock);

The previous code, in that situation, would not increment pages_use_count,
and it would not set not set shmem->pages. Hopefully, it would not try to
do anything with the pages it was unable to get. The new code assumes that
shmem->pages is valid even if pages_use_count is 0, while at the same time
taking into account that this can possibly happen (or the WARN_ON_ONCE
would not be needed).

Again, I don't know anything about gem and drm, but it seems to me that
there might now be a severe problem later on if the WARN_ON_ONCE()
ever triggers.

Thanks,
Guenter


       drm_gem_vm_open(vma);
  }




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux