Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: Prevent stopped entities from being added to the run queue.

[Philipp Stanner <phasta@mailbox.org>]

On Mon, 2025-07-21 at 11:07 -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:14:31PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On Mon Jul 21, 2025 at 10:16 AM CEST, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2025-07-21 at 09:52 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2025-07-20 at 16:56 -0700, James Flowers wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> > > > > index bfea608a7106..997a2cc1a635 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> > > > > @@ -172,8 +172,10 @@ void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(struct drm_sched_entity *entity,
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	entity->oldest_job_waiting = ts;
> > > > >  
> > > > > -	rb_add_cached(&entity->rb_tree_node, &rq->rb_tree_root,
> > > > > -		      drm_sched_entity_compare_before);
> > > > > +	if (!entity->stopped) {
> > > > > +		rb_add_cached(&entity->rb_tree_node, &rq->rb_tree_root,
> > > > > +			      drm_sched_entity_compare_before);
> > > > > +	}
> > > > 
> > > > If this is a race, then this patch here is broken, too, because you're
> > > > checking the 'stopped' boolean as the callers of that function do, too
> > > > – just later. :O
> > > > 
> > > > Could still race, just less likely.
> > > > 
> > > > The proper way to fix it would then be to address the issue where the
> > > > locking is supposed to happen. Let's look at, for example,
> > > > drm_sched_entity_push_job():
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > void drm_sched_entity_push_job(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job)
> > > > {
> > > > 	(Bla bla bla)
> > > > 
> > > >  	…………
> > > > 
> > > > 	/* first job wakes up scheduler */
> > > > 	if (first) {
> > > > 		struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched;
> > > > 		struct drm_sched_rq *rq;
> > > > 
> > > > 		/* Add the entity to the run queue */
> > > > 		spin_lock(&entity->lock);
> > > > 		if (entity->stopped) {                  <---- Aha!
> > > > 			spin_unlock(&entity->lock);
> > > > 
> > > > 			DRM_ERROR("Trying to push to a killed entity\n");
> > > > 			return;
> > > > 		}
> > > > 
> > > > 		rq = entity->rq;
> > > > 		sched = rq->sched;
> > > > 
> > > > 		spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > > > 		drm_sched_rq_add_entity(rq, entity);
> > > > 
> > > > 		if (drm_sched_policy == DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO)
> > > > 			drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(entity, rq, submit_ts); <---- bumm!
> > > > 
> > > > 		spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > > > 		spin_unlock(&entity->lock);
> > > > 
> > > > But the locks are still being hold. So that "shouldn't be happening"(tm).
> > > > 
> > > > Interesting. AFAICS only drm_sched_entity_kill() and drm_sched_fini()
> > > > stop entities. The former holds appropriate locks, but drm_sched_fini()
> > > > doesn't. So that looks like a hot candidate to me. Opinions?
> > > > 
> > > > On the other hand, aren't drivers prohibited from calling
> > > > drm_sched_entity_push_job() after calling drm_sched_fini()? If the
> > > > fuzzer does that, then it's not the scheduler's fault.
> > 
> > Exactly, this is the first question to ask.
> > 
> > And I think it's even more restrictive:
> > 
> > In drm_sched_fini()
> > 
> > 	for (i = DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_KERNEL; i < sched->num_rqs; i++) {
> > 		struct drm_sched_rq *rq = sched->sched_rq[i];
> > 
> > 		spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > 		list_for_each_entry(s_entity, &rq->entities, list)
> > 			/*
> > 			 * Prevents reinsertion and marks job_queue as idle,
> > 			 * it will be removed from the rq in drm_sched_entity_fini()
> > 			 * eventually
> > 			 */
> > 			s_entity->stopped = true;
> > 		spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > 		kfree(sched->sched_rq[i]);
> > 	}
> > 
> > In drm_sched_entity_kill()
> > 
> > 	static void drm_sched_entity_kill(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > 	{
> > 		struct drm_sched_job *job;
> > 		struct dma_fence *prev;
> > 
> > 		if (!entity->rq)
> > 			return;
> > 
> > 		spin_lock(&entity->lock);
> > 		entity->stopped = true;
> > 		drm_sched_rq_remove_entity(entity->rq, entity);
> > 		spin_unlock(&entity->lock);
> > 
> > 		[...]
> > 	}
> > 
> > If this runs concurrently, this is a UAF as well.
> > 
> > Personally, I have always been working with the assupmtion that entites have to
> > be torn down *before* the scheduler, but those lifetimes are not documented
> > properly.
> 
> Yes, this is my assumption too. I would even take it further: an entity
> shouldn't be torn down until all jobs associated with it are freed as
> well. I think this would solve a lot of issues I've seen on the list
> related to UAF, teardown, etc.

That's kind of impossible with the new tear down design, because
drm_sched_fini() ensures that all jobs are freed on teardown. And
drm_sched_fini() wouldn't be called before all jobs are gone,
effectively resulting in a chicken-egg-problem, or rather: the driver
implementing its own solution for teardown.

P.


> 
> > 
> > There are two solutions:
> > 
> >   (1) Strictly require all entities to be torn down before drm_sched_fini(),
> >       i.e. stick to the natural ownership and lifetime rules here (see below).
> > 
> >   (2) Actually protect *any* changes of the relevent fields of the entity
> >       structure with the entity lock.
> > 
> > While (2) seems rather obvious, we run into lock inversion with this approach,
> > as you note below as well. And I think drm_sched_fini() should not mess with
> > entities anyways.
> > 
> > The ownership here seems obvious:
> > 
> > The scheduler *owns* a resource that is used by entities. Consequently, entities
> > are not allowed to out-live the scheduler.
> > 
> > Surely, the current implementation to just take the resource away from the
> > entity under the hood can work as well with appropriate locking, but that's a
> > mess.
> > 
> > If the resource *really* needs to be shared for some reason (which I don't see),
> > shared ownership, i.e. reference counting, is much less error prone.
> 
> Yes, Xe solves all of this via reference counting (jobs refcount the
> entity). It's a bit easier in Xe since the scheduler and entities are
> the same object due to their 1:1 relationship. But even in non-1:1
> relationships, an entity could refcount the scheduler. The teardown
> sequence would then be: all jobs complete on the entity → teardown the
> entity → all entities torn down → teardown the scheduler.
> 
> Matt