* [PATCH] drm/vmwgfx: fix ttm_base_object refcount leak in vmw_buffer_prime_to_surface_base()
@ 2026-06-08 3:27 Wentao Liang
2026-06-08 3:37 ` sashiko-bot
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Wentao Liang @ 2026-06-08 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: zack.rusin, maarten.lankhorst, mripard, tzimmermann, airlied,
simona
Cc: bcm-kernel-feedback-list, dri-devel, linux-kernel, Wentao Liang,
stable
vmw_lookup_user_surface_for_buffer() returns a pointer with a
temporary reference taken via kref_get_unless_zero(). The other
two callers (vmw_lookup_surface_for_buffer and
vmw_lookup_surface_handle_for_buffer) correctly release it with
ttm_base_object_unref(). vmw_buffer_prime_to_surface_base() does
not, leaking the reference on both the success and
ttm_ref_object_add() failure paths.
Add the missing ttm_base_object_unref() before vmw_user_bo_unref()
at the out label.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: d6667f0ddf46 ("drm/vmwgfx: Fix handling of dumb buffers")
Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c
index b2d3927b5567..9e63846fd663 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c
@@ -972,6 +972,7 @@ static int vmw_buffer_prime_to_surface_base(struct vmw_private *dev_priv,
*base_p = base;
out:
+ ttm_base_object_unref(&base);
vmw_user_bo_unref(&bo);
return ret;
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] drm/vmwgfx: fix ttm_base_object refcount leak in vmw_buffer_prime_to_surface_base()
2026-06-08 3:27 [PATCH] drm/vmwgfx: fix ttm_base_object refcount leak in vmw_buffer_prime_to_surface_base() Wentao Liang
@ 2026-06-08 3:37 ` sashiko-bot
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: sashiko-bot @ 2026-06-08 3:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wentao Liang; +Cc: dri-devel
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Critical] Uninitialized variable dereference leading to kernel panic on the error path.
- [Critical] Double-put / Use-After-Free on the success path due to dropping a reference expected by the caller.
--
commit 6c286ae1f64531ad67606db48092510b8d2a64d9
Author: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
drm/vmwgfx: fix ttm_base_object refcount leak in vmw_buffer_prime_to_surface_base()
This patch attempts to fix a reference leak where the reference returned by
vmw_lookup_user_surface_for_buffer() was not properly dropped. It adds a call
to ttm_base_object_unref() at the error handling out label.
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c
> index b2d3927b55673..9e63846fd6630 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c
> @@ -972,6 +972,7 @@ static int vmw_buffer_prime_to_surface_base(struct vmw_private *dev_priv,
>
> *base_p = base;
> out:
> + ttm_base_object_unref(&base);
[Severity: Critical]
Does this code dereference an uninitialized pointer when
vmw_lookup_user_surface_for_buffer() fails?
In vmw_buffer_prime_to_surface_base(), base is declared but not initialized.
If vmw_lookup_user_surface_for_buffer() returns NULL, the code jumps to the
out label:
user_srf = vmw_lookup_user_surface_for_buffer(dev_priv, bo, *handle);
if (WARN_ON(!user_srf)) {
drm_warn(&dev_priv->drm,
"User surface fd %d (handle %d) is null.\n", fd, *handle);
ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
}
Because base has not been assigned a value before this jump, calling
ttm_base_object_unref(&base) at the out label will dereference an uninitialized
pointer, which could cause a kernel panic.
[Severity: Critical]
Will dropping the reference here cause a double-put or use-after-free on the
success path?
On the success path, the resolved base object is assigned to *base_p:
*base_p = base;
If the reference is unconditionally unreferenced at the out label, the object
returned to the caller (e.g. vmw_surface_reference_ioctl) will have already
lost the reference.
Since the caller expects to own this temporary reference and drop it
themselves, wouldn't dropping it here result in a double-put when the caller
eventually calls ttm_base_object_unref() on the returned object?
> vmw_user_bo_unref(&bo);
>
> return ret;
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260608032739.111055-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn?part=1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-06-08 3:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-06-08 3:27 [PATCH] drm/vmwgfx: fix ttm_base_object refcount leak in vmw_buffer_prime_to_surface_base() Wentao Liang
2026-06-08 3:37 ` sashiko-bot
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.