From: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, "Matthew Brost" <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
"Matthew Auld" <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/xe: Fix stale pinned_link entry when fb-pin performs the final unpin
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2026 15:40:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261001134018.111553-3-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261001134018.111553-1-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
xe_bo_pin_external() and xe_bo_unpin_external() maintain the bo's
pinned_link list membership in xe->pinned.late.external, based on
whether the current call is the outermost pin or the final unpin.
However, the same external bo's pin_count can also be raised and
lowered directly by __xe_pin_fb_vma()/__xe_unpin_fb_vma(), which pin
the bo as a display scanout buffer without going through
xe_bo_pin_external()/xe_bo_unpin_external() at all, and have no
notion of, or ownership over, pinned_link.
If a bo is pinned both externally (e.g. dma-buf export) and as an fb,
and the external unpin happens first, xe_bo_unpin_external() correctly
observes pin_count > 1 and leaves the bo on pinned_link. When the fb
unpin later performs the true last unpin (pin_count 1 -> 0), it never
touches pinned_link, leaving the bo linked on xe->pinned.late.external
indefinitely. Once the bo is subsequently freed, this stale list entry
points into freed memory, corrupting the list and risking a
use-after-free the next time the list is walked or spliced.
The backup object pin/unpin sites in xe_bo_notifier_prepare_pinned()/
xe_bo_notifier_unprepare_pinned() have the same bypass characteristic,
though they never add their bo to a pinned list, so are not affected
by this particular list-corruption issue.
Move the pinned_link removal into xe_bo_account_unpin(), which already
runs on every unpin path (kernel, external, framebuffer, backup
object) right before the true 1 -> 0 pin_count transition. Since
list_del_init() only operates on the node itself, this removal is
list-agnostic and safe to perform regardless of which list (external
or kernel_bo_present) the bo happens to be linked on, or which code
path is performing the final unpin. Drop the now-redundant explicit
list_del_init() calls in xe_bo_unpin_external() and xe_bo_unpin().
Fixes: 44e694958b95 ("drm/xe/display: Implement display support")
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v6.8+
Assisted-by: LLM
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
v2:
- New patch
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
index 2fbbba7cf4b0..581bfded21db 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
@@ -487,12 +487,27 @@ static void xe_bo_account_pin(struct xe_bo *bo)
* held, before &ttm_buffer_object.pin_count is decremented by
* ttm_bo_unpin(), so that the check against the true 1->0 transition sees
* the pin count that is about to be released.
+ *
+ * On the true last unpin, also removes @bo from whichever pinned-bo list
+ * (external or kernel_bo_present) it may currently be linked on, since a
+ * bo's final unpin can happen through a pin path (e.g. framebuffer,
+ * backup object) that has no notion of, or ownership over, that list.
+ * This is safe and list-agnostic: list_del_init() only needs the node
+ * itself, not knowledge of which list it is threaded through, and is a
+ * no-op if @bo is not linked.
*/
static void xe_bo_account_unpin(struct xe_bo *bo)
{
struct xe_device *xe = xe_bo_device(bo);
+ bool last_unpin = bo->ttm.pin_count == 1;
- if (bo->ttm.pin_count == 1 && bo->ttm.ttm && ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm.ttm))
+ if (last_unpin && !list_empty(&bo->pinned_link)) {
+ spin_lock(&xe->pinned.lock);
+ list_del_init(&bo->pinned_link);
+ spin_unlock(&xe->pinned.lock);
+ }
+
+ if (last_unpin && bo->ttm.ttm && ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm.ttm))
xe_ttm_tt_account_add(xe, bo->ttm.ttm);
}
@@ -3311,11 +3326,6 @@ void xe_bo_unpin_external(struct xe_bo *bo)
xe_assert(xe, xe_bo_is_pinned(bo));
xe_assert(xe, xe_bo_is_user(bo));
- spin_lock(&xe->pinned.lock);
- if (bo->ttm.pin_count == 1 && !list_empty(&bo->pinned_link))
- list_del_init(&bo->pinned_link);
- spin_unlock(&xe->pinned.lock);
-
xe_bo_unpin_account(bo);
/*
@@ -3337,10 +3347,7 @@ void xe_bo_unpin(struct xe_bo *bo)
xe_assert(xe, xe_bo_is_pinned(bo));
if (mem_type_is_vram(place->mem_type) || bo->flags & XE_BO_FLAG_GGTT) {
- spin_lock(&xe->pinned.lock);
xe_assert(xe, !list_empty(&bo->pinned_link));
- list_del_init(&bo->pinned_link);
- spin_unlock(&xe->pinned.lock);
if (bo->backup_obj) {
if (xe_bo_is_pinned(bo->backup_obj))
--
2.55.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-01 13:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-01 13:40 [PATCH v2 0/2] drm/xe: Fix two bo pin/unpin accounting bugs Thomas Hellström
2026-10-01 13:40 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/xe: Fix shrinker accounting double-subtraction on nested external pins Thomas Hellström
2026-10-01 13:56 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-01 17:34 ` Matthew Auld
2026-10-01 13:40 ` Thomas Hellström [this message]
2026-10-01 17:26 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/xe: Fix stale pinned_link entry when fb-pin performs the final unpin Matthew Auld
2026-10-02 9:52 ` Thomas Hellström
2026-10-02 11:59 ` Matthew Auld
2026-10-01 17:44 ` Matthew Auld
2026-10-01 13:50 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for drm/xe: Fix two bo pin/unpin accounting bugs Patchwork
2026-10-01 18:11 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-10-01 22:58 ` ✗ Xe.CI.FULL: failure " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20261001134018.111553-3-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
--to=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
--cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox