Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/nouveau: Prevent signaled fences in pending list

Christian König
2025-04-10T12:42:19Z

Am 10.04.25 um 14:21 schrieb Danilo Krummrich:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 02:13:34PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 10.04.25 um 11:24 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
>>> Nouveau currently relies on the assumption that dma_fences will only
>>> ever get signaled through nouveau_fence_signal(), which takes care of
>>> removing a signaled fence from the list nouveau_fence_chan.pending.
>>>
>>> This self-imposed rule is violated in nouveau_fence_done(), where
>>> dma_fence_is_signaled() (somewhat surprisingly, considering its name)
>>> can signal the fence without removing it from the list. This enables
>>> accesses to already signaled fences through the list, which is a bug.
>>>
>>> In particular, it can race with nouveau_fence_context_kill(), which
>>> would then attempt to set an error code on an already signaled fence,
>>> which is illegal.
>>>
>>> In nouveau_fence_done(), the call to nouveau_fence_update() already
>>> ensures to signal all ready fences. Thus, the signaling potentially
>>> performed by dma_fence_is_signaled() is actually not necessary.
>>>
>>> Replace the call to dma_fence_is_signaled() with
>>> nouveau_fence_base_is_signaled().
>>>
>>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.10+, precise commit not to be determined
>>> Signed-off-by: Philipp Stanner <phasta@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fence.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fence.c
>>> index 7cc84472cece..33535987d8ed 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fence.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fence.c
>>> @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ nouveau_fence_done(struct nouveau_fence *fence)
>>> nvif_event_block(&fctx->event);
>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fctx->lock, flags);
>>> }
>>> - return dma_fence_is_signaled(&fence->base);
>>> + return test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, &fence->base.flags);
>> See the code above that:
>>
>>         if (fence->base.ops == &nouveau_fence_ops_legacy ||
>>             fence->base.ops == &nouveau_fence_ops_uevent) {
> I think this check is a bit pointless given that fence is already a struct
> nouveau_fence. :)

Oh, good point. I totally missed that.

In this case that indeed doesn't make any sense at all.

(Unless somebody just blindly upcasted the structure, but I really hope that this isn't the case here).

Regards,
Christian.