From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@kernel.org>
To: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-xe] [PATCH 03/14] drm/xe: Do not take any action if our device was removed.
Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 13:21:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZFFGp1XD5Nfum0H7@rdvivi-mobl4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZFEvAuZRXl5U6ntH@DUT025-TGLU.fm.intel.com>
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 03:40:50PM +0000, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 04:57:02PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > Unfortunately devcoredump infrastructure does not provide and
> > interface for us to force the device removal upon the pci_remove
> > time of our device.
> >
> > The devcoredump is linked at the device level, so when in use
> > it will prevent the module removal, but it doesn't prevent the
> > call of the pci_remove callback. This callback cannot fail
> > anyway and we end up clearing and freeing the entire pci device.
> >
> > Hence, after we removed the pci device, we shouldn't allow any
> > read or free operations to avoid segmentation fault.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_devcoredump.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_devcoredump.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_devcoredump.c
> > index d9531183f03a..a08929c01b75 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_devcoredump.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_devcoredump.c
> > @@ -42,6 +42,11 @@
> > * hang capture.
> > */
> >
> > +static struct xe_device *coredump_to_xe(const struct xe_devcoredump *coredump)
> > +{
> > + return container_of(coredump, struct xe_device, devcoredump);
>
> Confused how still would ever return NULL, can you explain?
Very good question! I'm honestly still confused myself.
There's something not quite right with the device relationship that
is getting created with the failling_device and the virtual coredump device.
Once failing_device is removed, the devcoredump should be removed as well,
or both removals blocked. However this is not what happens.
On rmmod xe, the device removal is called and we free all xe structs.
The pci device removal is a void function. We cannot fail. The module
removal ends up blocked because the relationship, but that doesn't
saves the day since the device itself is already gone, by the pci
removal function.
But the devcoredump device is there and active. There's no callback on
devcoredump infra that we could call to force the device removal. Then
any read function will hit a NULL xe device and BOOM!
This is one of the things I planned to tackle on the devcoredump side
after we get this basic infra in use in our driver. This patch allows
us to be protected from this scenario while we don't fix this at the
devcoredump side.
It's worth saying that the devcoredump virtual device is auto removed
after a time elapsed... couple minutes? (I can't remember by heart now).
>
> Matt
>
> > +}
> > +
> > static ssize_t xe_devcoredump_read(char *buffer, loff_t offset,
> > size_t count, void *data, size_t datalen)
> > {
> > @@ -51,6 +56,10 @@ static ssize_t xe_devcoredump_read(char *buffer, loff_t offset,
> > struct drm_print_iterator iter;
> > struct timespec64 ts;
> >
> > + /* Our device is gone already... */
> > + if (!data || !coredump_to_xe(coredump))
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > iter.data = buffer;
> > iter.offset = 0;
> > iter.start = offset;
> > @@ -80,12 +89,16 @@ static ssize_t xe_devcoredump_read(char *buffer, loff_t offset,
> > static void xe_devcoredump_free(void *data)
> > {
> > struct xe_devcoredump *coredump = data;
> > - struct xe_device *xe = container_of(coredump, struct xe_device,
> > - devcoredump);
> > +
> > + /* Our device is gone. Nothing to do... */
> > + if (!data || !coredump_to_xe(coredump))
> > + return;
> > +
> > mutex_lock(&coredump->lock);
> >
> > coredump->faulty_engine = NULL;
> > - drm_info(&xe->drm, "Xe device coredump has been deleted.\n");
> > + drm_info(&coredump_to_xe(coredump)->drm,
> > + "Xe device coredump has been deleted.\n");
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&coredump->lock);
> > }
> > --
> > 2.39.2
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-02 17:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-26 20:56 [Intel-xe] [PATCH 00/14] Introduce xe_devcoredump Rodrigo Vivi
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 01/14] drm/xe: Fix print of RING_EXECLIST_SQ_CONTENTS_HI Rodrigo Vivi
2023-04-26 21:40 ` Lucas De Marchi
2023-04-26 21:59 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 02/14] drm/xe: Introduce the dev_coredump infrastructure Rodrigo Vivi
2023-04-27 8:28 ` Thomas Hellström
2023-05-02 7:57 ` Matthew Brost
2023-05-02 18:06 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-02 20:29 ` Matthew Brost
2023-05-02 7:55 ` Jani Nikula
2023-05-02 17:25 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 03/14] drm/xe: Do not take any action if our device was removed Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-02 15:40 ` Matthew Brost
2023-05-02 17:21 ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2023-05-02 23:06 ` Matthew Brost
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 04/14] drm/xe: Extract non mapped regions out of GuC CTB into its own struct Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-02 5:12 ` Matthew Brost
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 05/14] drm/xe: Convert GuC CT print to snapshot capture and print Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-02 5:27 ` Matthew Brost
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 06/14] drm/xe: Add GuC CT snapshot to xe_devcoredump Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-02 14:55 ` Matthew Brost
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 07/14] drm/xe: Introduce guc_submit_types.h with relevant structs Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-02 7:44 ` Matthew Brost
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 08/14] drm/xe: Convert GuC Engine print to snapshot capture and print Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-02 15:01 ` Matthew Brost
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 09/14] drm/xe: Add GuC Submit Engine snapshot to xe_devcoredump Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-02 15:03 ` Matthew Brost
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 10/14] drm/xe: Convert Xe HW Engine print to snapshot capture and print Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-02 15:20 ` Matthew Brost
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 11/14] drm/xe: Add HW Engine snapshot to xe_devcoredump Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-02 15:30 ` Matthew Brost
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 12/14] drm/xe: Limit CONFIG_DRM_XE_SIMPLE_ERROR_CAPTURE to itself Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-02 15:35 ` Matthew Brost
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 13/14] drm/xe: Convert VM print to snapshot capture and print Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-02 7:50 ` Matthew Brost
2023-05-02 8:07 ` Matthew Brost
2023-04-26 20:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 14/14] drm/xe: Add VM snapshot to xe_devcoredump Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-02 15:38 ` Matthew Brost
2023-04-26 21:01 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for Introduce xe_devcoredump Patchwork
2023-04-26 21:02 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2023-04-26 21:06 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2023-04-26 21:29 ` [Intel-xe] ○ CI.BAT: info " Patchwork
2023-05-02 8:11 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 00/14] " Matthew Brost
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=ZFFGp1XD5Nfum0H7@rdvivi-mobl4 \
--to=rodrigo.vivi@kernel.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
/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