From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bali.collaboradmins.com (bali.collaboradmins.com [148.251.105.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B76A540DFA9; Thu, 7 May 2026 12:10:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.251.105.195 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778155838; cv=none; b=cdidSMRlsUx+CIaJHzg666v7oLvmVs9+MP9HCu/Tt/m4xZn3OIMV4/ZHKWiLk78eyyfF29rAV4BOfUg4m0DqD30nD9GzCp6tq8PzQPaI1AyoZzcfrgbFA/Zifo8pUkOoS8bjpfsph1nAdSLwDvbMfB0iFxTEg91lDWaJJl9XBZw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778155838; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VzeTl1zd/0YqxA7PQbXWH87HGQtycpS00hXPs1oynRM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=K9JPa/dGTddh+yGOHj74FQjKwCTV+f5CYrrMd9fX8VRsQu43KFAT3BQ4SRL5XWg2RknTIqgkZR/XIjQrFp043jWHMfxMAEGB0Yk4/V1Xuu9HUZBwDSjYoQkZpteQR7za461pc5REMnfQIA6ixaFdKAbLHUMVbWMBCfLKLh/W23Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b=H0sxO4IP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.251.105.195 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b="H0sxO4IP" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1778155833; bh=VzeTl1zd/0YqxA7PQbXWH87HGQtycpS00hXPs1oynRM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=H0sxO4IPU3e5uKOI2s/JrND6tYmrn5NV3IMqpmvH5O901Q0IkfumPjlbtzff1CDOX voD2ZfQsTZRnOUI7oaOzvU6ZsvmK6FW+taKt+9lLYQ5oA9ZBOo3Nk1BqOmYWVIw5VL KiGlS1gL5bgcnJGP7XKn9kKxgaEGVGspTehjuZN7DOK7ArgY+LTa9MBcZ4YAXpFRWO SDweQi6GfFt1OaVXFh7tLTNhQFKqM9BIy0R51fEoJ3y2Qw0cPFp4gPe57Abfn41WT3 aPRj+MLoc+R4dWVydatbAdknxakTRdLxWLxUVkSlbewnZOv0jGDoFUZ2I2GhSYTpxI qjq3Y7fXXuAXA== Received: from fedora (unknown [100.64.0.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bbrezillon) by bali.collaboradmins.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB9AF17E125C; Thu, 7 May 2026 14:10:32 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 14:10:27 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: Liviu Dudau , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Steven Price , Dmitry Osipenko , Maarten Lankhorst , Maxime Ripard , Thomas Zimmermann , David Airlie , Simona Vetter , Akash Goel , Chia-I Wu , Rob Clark , Dmitry Baryshkov , Abhinav Kumar , Jessica Zhang , Sean Paul , Marijn Suijten , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/panthor: Don't use the racy drm_gem_lru_remove() helper Message-ID: <20260507141027.166ab00d@fedora> In-Reply-To: References: <20260506-panthor-shrinker-fixes-v1-0-e7721526de96@collabora.com> <20260506-panthor-shrinker-fixes-v1-1-e7721526de96@collabora.com> Organization: Collabora X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.4.0 (GTK 3.24.52; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 7 May 2026 11:01:25 +0100 Liviu Dudau wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 02:16:26PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > drm_gem_lru_remove() dereference stores drm_gem_object::lru in a local > > variable that's then dereferenced to acquire the LRU lock. Because this > > assignment in done without the LRU lock held, it can race with > > drm_gem_lru_scan() where drm_gem_object::lru is temporarily assigned > > a stack-allcated LRU that goes away when leaving the function. By > > the time we dereference this local lru variable, the object might already > > be gone. > > > > It feels like drm_gem_lru_move_tail() was never meant to be used this > > way, because there's no easy way we can avoid this race unless we defer > > the locking to the caller. Let's add an explicit LRU for unreclaimable > > BOs instead, and have all BOs added to this LRU at creation time. > > I would argue that drm_gem_lru_scan() is broken by design. If you're going > to release the LRU lock in the middle of a loop you can expect that someone > will get hold of your stack-allocated LRU and end up picking the pieces. I think it's fine as long as you always use the drm_gem_lru helpers to manipulate the lru field, which is true of a lot of kernel constructs. > This patch is fine in itself by trying to avoid stepping into the fight, > but I think we should also add a warning in drm_gem_lru_scan() for future > users to be aware of the dangers. Warning the user about what? There's nothing they can do about it, and I don't even think it's unsafe per-se, unless someone goes off and stores the drm_gem_object::lru value somewhere else while their shrink() callback is called, and accesses it later, outside the shrinker path. Given drm_gem_lru is not refcounted, there's no way one could safely hold on the LRU they saw in the shrink() callback anyway, so I don't think that's fair to blame the drm_gem_lru API for this kind of misuse.