Linux Media Controller development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>
To: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"Sumit Semwal" <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
	"linux-media@vger.kernel.org" <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
	"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org>,
	"Stéphane Marchesin" <marcheu@chromium.org>,
	"stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: fix debugfs versus rcu and fence dumping
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 16:08:12 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4e79bf05-864e-f3ca-194c-40c4504e472a@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181206152116.GA3544@redhat.com>

Am 06.12.18 um 16:21 schrieb Jerome Glisse:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:09:28AM +0000, Koenig, Christian wrote:
>> Am 06.12.18 um 02:41 schrieb jglisse@redhat.com:
>>> From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> The debugfs take reference on fence without dropping them. Also the
>>> rcu section are not well balance. Fix all that ...
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
>>> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
>>> Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
>>> Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>>> Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
>>> Cc: Stéphane Marchesin <marcheu@chromium.org>
>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> Well NAK, you are now taking the RCU lock twice and dropping the RCU and
>> still accessing fobj has a huge potential for accessing freed up memory.
>>
>> The only correct thing I can see here is to grab a reference to the
>> fence before printing any info on it,
>> Christian.
> Hu ? That is exactly what i am doing, take reference under rcu,
> rcu_unlock print the fence info, drop the fence reference, rcu
> lock rinse and repeat ...
>
> Note that the fobj in _existing_ code is access outside the rcu
> end that there is an rcu imbalance in that code ie a lonlely
> rcu_unlock after the for loop.
>
> So that the existing code is broken.

No, the existing code is perfectly fine.

Please note the break in the loop before the rcu_unlock();
>    			if (!read_seqcount_retry(&robj->seq, seq))
>    				break; <- HERE!
>    			rcu_read_unlock();
>    		}

So your patch breaks that and take the RCU read lock twice.

Regards,
Christian.

>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c | 11 +++++++++--
>>>    1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
>>> index 13884474d158..f6f4de42ac49 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
>>> @@ -1051,24 +1051,31 @@ static int dma_buf_debug_show(struct seq_file *s, void *unused)
>>>    			fobj = rcu_dereference(robj->fence);
>>>    			shared_count = fobj ? fobj->shared_count : 0;
>>>    			fence = rcu_dereference(robj->fence_excl);
>>> +			fence = dma_fence_get_rcu(fence);
>>>    			if (!read_seqcount_retry(&robj->seq, seq))
>>>    				break;
>>>    			rcu_read_unlock();
>>>    		}
>>> -
>>> -		if (fence)
>>> +		if (fence) {
>>>    			seq_printf(s, "\tExclusive fence: %s %s %ssignalled\n",
>>>    				   fence->ops->get_driver_name(fence),
>>>    				   fence->ops->get_timeline_name(fence),
>>>    				   dma_fence_is_signaled(fence) ? "" : "un");
>>> +			dma_fence_put(fence);
>>> +		}
>>> +
>>> +		rcu_read_lock();
>>>    		for (i = 0; i < shared_count; i++) {
>>>    			fence = rcu_dereference(fobj->shared[i]);
>>>    			if (!dma_fence_get_rcu(fence))
>>>    				continue;
>>> +			rcu_read_unlock();
>>>    			seq_printf(s, "\tShared fence: %s %s %ssignalled\n",
>>>    				   fence->ops->get_driver_name(fence),
>>>    				   fence->ops->get_timeline_name(fence),
>>>    				   dma_fence_is_signaled(fence) ? "" : "un");
>>> +			dma_fence_put(fence);
>>> +			rcu_read_lock();
>>>    		}
>>>    		rcu_read_unlock();
>>>    


  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-12-06 16:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-06  1:41 [PATCH] dma-buf: fix debugfs versus rcu and fence dumping jglisse
2018-12-06  8:09 ` Koenig, Christian
     [not found]   ` <20181206152116.GA3544@redhat.com>
2018-12-06 16:08     ` Koenig, Christian [this message]
2018-12-06 16:19       ` Jerome Glisse
2018-12-16 19:23 ` kbuild test robot

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=4e79bf05-864e-f3ca-194c-40c4504e472a@amd.com \
    --to=christian.koenig@amd.com \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
    --cc=linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marcheu@chromium.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sumit.semwal@linaro.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