* [PATCH] drm/vmwgfx: Return gem fd handle for scanout buffers
@ 2026-08-20 16:58 Maaz Mombasawala
2026-08-20 17:11 ` sashiko-bot
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Maaz Mombasawala @ 2026-08-20 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dri-devel
Cc: bcm-kernel-feedback-list, ian.forbes, zack.rusin,
Maaz Mombasawala
When prime_handle_to_fd is called on a gem buffer handle, we return an
fd for the surface handle if the gem buffer backs a surface.
Return the gem buffer's handle instead for cases when the surface is a
scanout buffer.
Also bump the minor version since this is a slight change in behaviour.
This fixes gem_close() errors in kwin where the compositor expects a gem
handle but gets a vmw surface handle instead.
Signed-off-by: Maaz Mombasawala <maaz.mombasawala@broadcom.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h | 10 ++++---
drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_prime.c | 14 +++++----
drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c | 38 ++++++++++++-------------
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h
index 38bea8abab84..ff33ba1075a4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
#define VMWGFX_DRIVER_NAME "vmwgfx"
#define VMWGFX_DRIVER_MAJOR 2
-#define VMWGFX_DRIVER_MINOR 21
+#define VMWGFX_DRIVER_MINOR 22
#define VMWGFX_DRIVER_PATCHLEVEL 0
#define VMWGFX_FIFO_STATIC_SIZE (1024*1024)
#define VMWGFX_NUM_DISPLAY_UNITS 8
@@ -1180,9 +1180,11 @@ int vmw_gb_surface_define(struct vmw_private *dev_priv,
struct vmw_surface *vmw_lookup_surface_for_buffer(struct vmw_private *vmw,
struct vmw_bo *bo,
u32 handle);
-u32 vmw_lookup_surface_handle_for_buffer(struct vmw_private *vmw,
- struct vmw_bo *bo,
- u32 handle);
+void vmw_lookup_surface_and_handle_for_buffer(struct vmw_private *vmw,
+ struct vmw_bo *bo,
+ u32 handle,
+ u32 *srf_handle,
+ struct vmw_surface **p_srf);
int vmw_dumb_create(struct drm_file *file_priv,
struct drm_device *dev,
struct drm_mode_create_dumb *args);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_prime.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_prime.c
index 598b90ac7590..7e6581ee09cc 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_prime.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_prime.c
@@ -93,8 +93,9 @@ int vmw_prime_handle_to_fd(struct drm_device *dev,
struct vmw_private *vmw = vmw_priv(dev);
struct ttm_object_file *tfile = vmw_fpriv(file_priv)->tfile;
struct vmw_bo *vbo;
+ struct vmw_surface *surface = NULL;
+ int surf_handle = 0;
int ret;
- int surf_handle;
if (handle > VMWGFX_NUM_MOB) {
ret = ttm_prime_handle_to_fd(tfile, handle, flags, prime_fd);
@@ -106,16 +107,19 @@ int vmw_prime_handle_to_fd(struct drm_device *dev,
ret = drm_gem_prime_handle_to_fd(dev, file_priv, handle,
flags, prime_fd);
} else {
- surf_handle = vmw_lookup_surface_handle_for_buffer(vmw,
- vbo,
- handle);
- if (surf_handle > 0)
+ vmw_lookup_surface_and_handle_for_buffer(vmw, vbo,
+ handle,
+ &surf_handle,
+ &surface);
+ if (surface && !surface->metadata.scanout)
ret = ttm_prime_handle_to_fd(tfile, surf_handle,
flags, prime_fd);
else
ret = drm_gem_prime_handle_to_fd(dev, file_priv,
handle, flags,
prime_fd);
+ if (surface)
+ vmw_surface_unreference(&surface);
}
vmw_user_bo_unref(&vbo);
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c
index bd0563741e89..15455bdba402 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c
@@ -895,38 +895,38 @@ vmw_lookup_user_surface_for_buffer(struct vmw_private *vmw, struct vmw_bo *bo,
return user_srf;
}
-struct vmw_surface *vmw_lookup_surface_for_buffer(struct vmw_private *vmw,
- struct vmw_bo *bo,
- u32 handle)
+void vmw_lookup_surface_and_handle_for_buffer(struct vmw_private *vmw,
+ struct vmw_bo *bo,
+ u32 handle,
+ u32 *srf_handle,
+ struct vmw_surface **p_srf)
{
struct vmw_user_surface *user_srf =
vmw_lookup_user_surface_for_buffer(vmw, bo, handle);
- struct vmw_surface *surf = NULL;
struct ttm_base_object *base;
+ if (p_srf)
+ *p_srf = NULL;
+ if (srf_handle)
+ *srf_handle = 0;
if (user_srf) {
- surf = vmw_surface_reference(&user_srf->srf);
+ if (p_srf)
+ *p_srf = vmw_surface_reference(&user_srf->srf);
base = &user_srf->prime.base;
+ if (srf_handle)
+ *srf_handle = (u32)base->handle;
ttm_base_object_unref(&base);
}
- return surf;
}
-u32 vmw_lookup_surface_handle_for_buffer(struct vmw_private *vmw,
- struct vmw_bo *bo,
- u32 handle)
+struct vmw_surface *vmw_lookup_surface_for_buffer(struct vmw_private *vmw,
+ struct vmw_bo *bo,
+ u32 handle)
{
- struct vmw_user_surface *user_srf =
- vmw_lookup_user_surface_for_buffer(vmw, bo, handle);
- int surf_handle = 0;
- struct ttm_base_object *base;
+ struct vmw_surface *surface = NULL;
- if (user_srf) {
- base = &user_srf->prime.base;
- surf_handle = (u32)base->handle;
- ttm_base_object_unref(&base);
- }
- return surf_handle;
+ vmw_lookup_surface_and_handle_for_buffer(vmw, bo, handle, NULL, &surface);
+ return surface;
}
static int vmw_buffer_prime_to_surface_base(struct vmw_private *dev_priv,
--
2.55.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/vmwgfx: Return gem fd handle for scanout buffers
2026-08-20 16:58 [PATCH] drm/vmwgfx: Return gem fd handle for scanout buffers Maaz Mombasawala
@ 2026-08-20 17:11 ` sashiko-bot
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: sashiko-bot @ 2026-08-20 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maaz Mombasawala; +Cc: dri-devel
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
New issues:
- [Low] Passing an `int *` to a function expecting a `u32 *` causes an incompatible pointer type build failure.
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Concurrent lockless access to the RB-tree `vbo->res_tree` leads to tree corruption and an associated Use-After-Free window.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH] drm/vmwgfx: Return gem fd handle for scanout buffers ---
commit b5937886d1e50afefe640e402b3c52ae509b9578
Author: Maaz Mombasawala <maaz.mombasawala@broadcom.com>
drm/vmwgfx: Return gem fd handle for scanout buffers
When prime_handle_to_fd is called on a gem buffer handle, we return an
fd for the surface handle if the gem buffer backs a surface.
Return the gem buffer's handle instead for cases when the surface is a
scanout buffer.
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h
> index 38bea8abab84c..ff33ba1075a40 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h
[ ... ]
> @@ -1180,9 +1180,11 @@ int vmw_gb_surface_define(struct vmw_private *dev_priv,
> struct vmw_surface *vmw_lookup_surface_for_buffer(struct vmw_private *vmw,
> struct vmw_bo *bo,
> u32 handle);
> -u32 vmw_lookup_surface_handle_for_buffer(struct vmw_private *vmw,
> - struct vmw_bo *bo,
> - u32 handle);
> +void vmw_lookup_surface_and_handle_for_buffer(struct vmw_private *vmw,
> + struct vmw_bo *bo,
> + u32 handle,
> + u32 *srf_handle,
> + struct vmw_surface **p_srf);
> int vmw_dumb_create(struct drm_file *file_priv,
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_prime.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_prime.c
> index 598b90ac7590b..7e6581ee09cc1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_prime.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_prime.c
> @@ -93,8 +93,9 @@ int vmw_prime_handle_to_fd(struct drm_device *dev,
> struct vmw_private *vmw = vmw_priv(dev);
> struct ttm_object_file *tfile = vmw_fpriv(file_priv)->tfile;
> struct vmw_bo *vbo;
> + struct vmw_surface *surface = NULL;
> + int surf_handle = 0;
> int ret;
> - int surf_handle;
>
> if (handle > VMWGFX_NUM_MOB) {
> ret = ttm_prime_handle_to_fd(tfile, handle, flags, prime_fd);
> @@ -106,16 +107,19 @@ int vmw_prime_handle_to_fd(struct drm_device *dev,
> ret = drm_gem_prime_handle_to_fd(dev, file_priv, handle,
> flags, prime_fd);
> } else {
> - surf_handle = vmw_lookup_surface_handle_for_buffer(vmw,
> - vbo,
> - handle);
> - if (surf_handle > 0)
> + vmw_lookup_surface_and_handle_for_buffer(vmw, vbo,
> + handle,
> + &surf_handle,
^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Severity: Low]
Does passing an int pointer to a parameter that expects a u32 pointer cause a
compiler warning or build failure?
The function signature for vmw_lookup_surface_and_handle_for_buffer() explicitly
requires a u32 pointer for the fourth parameter.
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does calling this locklessly
lead to tree corruption or a use-after-free?
When vmw_prime_handle_to_fd() calls vmw_lookup_surface_and_handle_for_buffer(),
it eventually calls vmw_bo_surface() which iterates over the vbo->res_tree
RB-tree locklessly:
drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_bo.c:vmw_bo_surface() {
...
for (rb_itr = rb_first(&vbo->res_tree); rb_itr;
rb_itr = rb_next(rb_itr)) {
...
}
Concurrently, other ioctls can acquire the dma_resv lock and modify the
res_tree. Can this concurrent modification result in an infinite loop or a
kernel crash?
Also, in vmw_lookup_user_surface_for_buffer(), the RCU read lock is acquired
after the pointer surf has already been retrieved:
drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_surface.c:vmw_lookup_user_surface_for_buffer() {
...
surf = vmw_bo_surface(bo);
if (surf) {
rcu_read_lock();
...
}
Could this leave a window where the object can be freed before the lock is
acquired?
> + &surface);
> + if (surface && !surface->metadata.scanout)
> ret = ttm_prime_handle_to_fd(tfile, surf_handle,
> flags, prime_fd);
> else
> ret = drm_gem_prime_handle_to_fd(dev, file_priv,
> handle, flags,
> prime_fd);
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260820165838.442723-1-maaz.mombasawala@broadcom.com?part=1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-08-20 17:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-08-20 16:58 [PATCH] drm/vmwgfx: Return gem fd handle for scanout buffers Maaz Mombasawala
2026-08-20 17:11 ` 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.