Re: [PATCH] amdgpu_dm: fix nonblocking atomic commit use-after-free

daniel
2020-07-28T21:58:46Z

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 01:07:13PM -0400, Kazlauskas, Nicholas wrote:
> On 2020-07-28 5:22 a.m., Paul Menzel wrote:
> > Dear Linux folks,
> >
> >
> > Am 25.07.20 um 07:20 schrieb Mazin Rezk:
> > > On Saturday, July 25, 2020 12:59 AM, Duncan wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 03:03:52 +0000 Mazin Rezk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Am 24.07.20 um 19:33 schrieb Kees Cook:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > There was a fix to disable the async path for this driver that
> > > > > > > worked around the bug too, yes? That seems like a safer and more
> > > > > > > focused change that doesn't revert the SLUB defense for all
> > > > > > > users, and would actually provide a complete, I think, workaround
> > > > >
> > > > > That said, I haven't seen the async disabling patch. If you could
> > > > > link to it, I'd be glad to test it out and perhaps we can use that
> > > > > instead.
> > > >
> > > > I'm confused. Not to put words in Kees' mouth; /I/ am confused (which
> > > > admittedly could well be just because I make no claims to be a
> > > > coder and am simply reading the bug and thread, but I'd appreciate some
> > > > "unconfusing" anyway).
> > > >
> > > > My interpretation of the "async disabling" reference was that it was to
> > > > comment #30 on the bug:
> > > >
> > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=207383#c30
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ... which (if I'm not confused on this point too) appears to be yours.
> > > > There it was stated...
> > > >
> > > > I've also found that this bug exclusively occurs when commit_work is on
> > > > the workqueue. After forcing drm_atomic_helper_commit to run all of the
> > > > commits without adding to the workqueue and running the OS, the issue
> > > > seems to have disappeared.
> > > > <<<<
> > > >
> > > > Would not forcing all commits to run directly, without placing them on
> > > > the workqueue, be "async disabling"? That's what I /thought/ he was
> > > > referencing.
> > >
> > > Oh, I thought he was referring to a different patch. Kees, could I get
> > > your confirmation on this?
> > >
> > > The change I made actually affected all of the DRM code, although
> > > this could
> > > easily be changed to be specific to amdgpu. (By forcing blocking on
> > > amdgpu_dm's non-blocking commit code)
> > >
> > > That said, I'd still need to test further because I only did test it
> > > for a
> > > couple of hours then. Although it should work in theory.
> > >
> > > > OTOH your base/context swap idea sounds like a possibly "less
> > > > disturbance" workaround, if it works, and given the point in the
> > > > commit cycle... (But if it's out Sunday it's likely too late to test
> > > > and get it in now anyway; if it's another week, tho...)
> > >
> > > The base/context swap idea should make the use-after-free behave how it
> > > did in 5.6. Since the bug doesn't cause an issue in 5.6, it's less of a
> > > "less disturbance" workaround and more of a "no disturbance" workaround.
> >
> > Sorry for bothering, but is there now a solution, besides reverting the
> > commits, to avoid freezes/crashes *without* performance regressions?
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Paul
>
> Mazin's "drm/amd/display: Clear dm_state for fast updates" change
> accomplishes this, at least as a temporary hack.

Yeah I gets it's horrible, but better than nothing. Reverting the old
amdgpu change to a private state object is probably a lot more invasive.

> I've started work on a more large scale fix that we could get in in after.

Does that include a fix for the "stuff needed by irq handler"? Either way
pls cc dri-devel, I think this is something worth of a bit wider
discussion. Feels like unsolved homework from the entire "make DC
integrate into linux" saga ...
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation